Legal Opinion
The President Coolidge
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided May 23, 1938No. 13908PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
It is objected (1) that the libelant was not a seaman at the time of the accident in the sense that he was not performing duties as a seaman at the time of his injury; (2) he was not in the service of the ship at the time of the casualty; (3) that the voyage had not begun. Seaman in early times meant a person who can hand, reef and steer—a mariner in the full sense of the word. By statute, 46 U.S.C.A. § 713, every person who shall be employed in any capacity on board a vessel shall be deemed and taken to be a seaman. Hoof v. Pacific American Fisheries, D.C., 284 F.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pacific American Fisheries v. HoofCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
- Meyer v. Dollar S. S. LineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
- Montgomery v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- The Sea LarkDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1926
- Hoof v. Pacific American FisheriesDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1922
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of NJSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Wahlgren v. Standard Oil Co. of New JerseyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Smith v. American South African Line, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Jones v. Waterman S. S. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942