The Z R—3
District Court, W.D. New York
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Respondent contends a lien against the vessel may not be asserted, that the service is a landsman’s service, and that the agreement to pay 75 cents and $1, instead of 60 cents, is without consideration.
Section 8149, Comp. St. (section 4393, R. S.), having relation to recovery of shares of fish under agreement, has no application to this issue, as contended for by the libel-ants. The libelants did not work on a “fisherman’s share” of the fish, but for a stipulated wage.
Section 8392, Comp. St., however, has application: “Every person * * * who shall be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The MinnaDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1882
- The Sea LarkDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
- Heino v. Libby, McNeill & LibbyWashington Supreme Court · 1921
3Cited by4 opinions
- Union Oil Company v. James J. Oppen and John J. MastersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Old Point Fish Co. v. HaywoodCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
- Old Point Fish Co. v. HaywoodCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
- Union Oil Company v. James J. Oppen and John J. MastersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974