Hindman v. Shaw
District Court, D. Pennsylvania
[This was a libel for wages, by Hindman against Shaw, master of the brig Diligence.] • A ship had been at a port of delivery; and so far earned her freight. She sailed from Philadelphia on a circuitous voyage, and to return to that port. The seaman had shipped for the voyage. At a port, subsequent to her first delivering port, in Europe, she was found not sea-worthy.
Read the full summary
[This was a libel for wages, by Hindman against Shaw, master of the brig Diligence.] • A ship had been at a port of delivery; and so far earned her freight. She sailed from Philadelphia on a circuitous voyage, and to return to that port. The seaman had shipped for the voyage. At a port, subsequent to her first delivering port, in Europe, she was found not sea-worthy. The cargo was reshipped for its destination, in another vessel, freighted for the purpose; the seaman was offered a continuance of his contract, in the freighted vessel. He refused; and now claimed his wages to the time of the…
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT.
This seaman comes before me with a barren case. I see no equity in his demand for the additional pay, and as little justice in his claim, after the delivery of the former cargo. The freight was earned to that time, and his wages attached to that fund. I do not feel myself warranted in allowing more than the wages to the first port, and for half the time of stay there. His refusal to continue his contract, though in another ship with the same cargo, is tantamount to desertion; and though there is some difficulty in bringing his case to that point, owing to the change of ship and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Swift v. The Frank & WillieDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1891
- Gourley v. Matson Navigation Co.District Court, D. Hawaii · 1903