Legal Opinion
Neville v. American Barge Line Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 18, 1952No. 214PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEWART, District Judge.
This is an action by an injured seaman to recover maintenance and cure during the period of recuperation. The case was tried by the Court without a jury and upon all the evidence, we make the following
Findings of Fact
1. On June 9, 1950, the libellant, Buelah L. Neville, was employed by the respondent as a laundress on the motor vessel “Trade Winds”.
2. The respondent is a corporation having an office for the transaction of business in the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
3. The “Trade Winds” was a motor vessel with a total horsepower of 11400 and at all times herein…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of NJSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Farrell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Loverich v. Warner Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- Shields v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
3Cited by5 opinions
- Beulah L. Neville, Amended to Beulah L. Neville Garlinger v. American Barge Line Company, Amended to American Commercial Barge Line CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- Anna Mahramas v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., and House of Albert, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Anna Mahramas v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., and House of Albert, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Beulah L. Neville, Amended to Beulah L. Neville Garlinger v. American Barge Line Company, Amended to American Commercial Barge Line CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
- Steuer v. NEDERL-AMERIK STOOMVAART MAATSCHAPPF, ETC.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1973