EVANS v. STARBUCK
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
This was a libel by Evans and others against the dredge Starbuck to recover wages.
1Opinion of the Court
BUTLER, District Judge.
The claims are for wages. The respondent is a dredge, working in the water with the usual accompaniment of scows. That a dredge and her scows are to be treated as one concern, and are subject to the admiralty jurisdiction has been séveral times decided, and I think rightly. To discuss the subject would be waste of time. The question of admiralty jurisdiction has been so fully considered that nothing new can be added. The fol*503lowing cases present the subject in every aspect in which it has arisen or is likely to arise: The Pioneer, 30 Fed. 206; The Alabama, 19 Fed. 544;…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- The AlabamaUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
- The Kate TremaineDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1871
- The Hendrick HudsonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1869
- Huismann v. The PioneerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1886
- McNamara v. The AtlanticDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1893
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- McRae v. Bowers Dredging Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1898
- Charles Barnes Co. v. One Dredge BoatDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1909
- Bowers Hydraulic Dredging Co. v. Federal Contracting Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1906
- Lawrence v. FlatboatDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1897
- Connelly v. The InternationalDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.