PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIP COMPANY
v.
LUCAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A seaman left behind at Honolulu while ill during a voyage sued for unpaid wages and medical expenses; the shipping company defended by asserting the seaman had signed a statutory release of claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that the release was not effective because the seaman was only asked to sign for his wages without being told of a discharge, and the master failed to provide a required discharge certificate, combined with a later statute allowing courts to set aside releases when justice requires.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a.libel brought by the respondent to recover $219 for wages, subsistence and medical attendance, the libellant having been left at Honolulu, ill, in the course of a voyage from San Francisco to the Orient and return. The defence is that he was not ill, that ill or well he should have, remained upon the vessel, and further that he was discharged, and signed the mutual release required .by Rev. Stats., § 4552, and by that section made a bar. The Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the finding of the District Court that the libellant was not malingering, and, as we take it, although it is argued otherwise, also in finding that the doctor and master of the ship were willing that the libellant should go to the Marine Hospital. The only, question that we see reason for considering is whether the two Courts were right in holding that the libellant was not concluded by the release.
Both Courts have found that the respondent was only asked to sign for his wages, that a discharge was riot mentioned, and to put it in our own way, that the purport of the overt acts in the circumstances was not to release the libellant’s claim.- The petitioner cites the words of Rev. Stats., § 4552, and Rosenberg v. Doe, 146. Mass. 191, to show that such a position is impossible. But the same case at a later stage, 148 Mass. 560, admitted á. different result where the sailor knew too little English to understand the nature of the document and there was evidence that it was misstated to him. In the present case we have the further very important fact, which does not appear in the report of Rosenberg v. Doe, that the master did not give the'respondent a certificate .of discharge, as he was required to, under a penalty of fifty dollars, by Rev. Stats. § 4551, if,the; respondent really was discharged. Morer over, by a-statute later in its present form than Rosenberg v. Doe, it is provided that notwithstanding the statutory release “ any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice' shall require.” Act of March 4, 1915, c. 153, § 4; 38 Stat. 1164, 1165. We are not prepared to say that the finding of the two Courts was wrong.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (U.S. 1945)…f merchant seamen, 46 U. S. C. §§ 597, 644. The federal courts have interpreted these provisions strictly so as to protect the employee. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239; Duncan v. Thompson, 315 U. S. 1; Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Lucas, 258 U. S. 266; Arrow Stevedore Co. v. Pillsbury, 88 F. 2d 446; Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Pillsbury, 130 F. 2d 21; Henderson v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 134 F. 2d 320; Westenrider v. United States, 134 F. 2d 772. See note 14, supra. 7 Wage Hour Rep. 313.…
-
Garrett v. Moore-McCORMACK Co., Inc., 317 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1942)…ns, 304 U. S. 64. Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233, 242. Cf. The Hamilton, supra. See Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, 136-42; cf. Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U. S. 481, 483. 46 U. S. C. § 597. See Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Lucas, 258 U. S. 266; ibid., 264 F. 938. Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503, 556; cf. Magruder v. Drury, 235 U. S. 106, 120; Thorn Wire Co. v. Washburn & Moen Co., 159 U. S. 423, 443; Klamath Indians v. United States, 296 U. S. 244, 254; and United States v. Dunn, 268 U. S.…
-
The S. S. Standard. Bonici v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 103 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1939)…vided that “any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice shall require.” Act of Mar. 4, 1915, c. 153, § 4, 38 Stat. 1164, 1165, 46 U.S.C.A. § 597; Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Lucas, 258 U.S. 266, 42 S.Ct. 308, 66 L. Ed. 614. We think, therefore, that maintenance for the additional period of disability should be awarded. It is true that the amount paid the libelant at or before the giving of the release was. somewhat in excess of maintenanc…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence