Swift v. Knowles, 8878.
Citation | 1939 AMC 148,100 F.2d 977 |
Decision Date | 17 January 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 8878.,8878. |
Parties | SWIFT v. KNOWLES. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
James A. Dixon and H. Reid De Jarnette, both of Miami, Fla., for appellant.
Roger Edward Davis, of Miami, Fla., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
John S. Swift, the owner of motorboat 18-K-528, employed Lloyd Knowles about Oct. 30, 1937, to work on and about the boat. On Feb. 15, 1938, Swift directed Knowles to wash the former's automobile, which Knowles refused to do, claiming it was not within his employment. Swift paid him off and discharged him. Knowles libelled the motorboat for his wages accruing subsequently, and on April 29, 1938, obtained a decree for them figured to Oct. 30, 1938, less what Knowles had earned since his discharge in another continuing employment up to the date of the decree. Swift has appealed, and has applied to take additional evidence in this court to show what Knowles earned between the date of the decree and October 30, 1938.
From the findings of the District Judge it seems that he regarded the contract of employment to be founded on a letter from Swift to Knowles, dated Oct. 9, 1937, which Knowles in his libel asserted to be the contract. It reads thus: Swift claiming the motorboat by his answer denied that this was the contract, admitted the discharge, and sought to justify it. Swift and Knowles were the only witnesses heard. Swift testified to an oral employment in Miami about the last of October of Knowles as a handyman about Swift's winter home there, to include service on the boat. He said he wrote the letter of Oct. 9, but never received any reply, and the letter was not before them at the time of contracting, and concluded thus: Knowles in testifying produced the letter, but did not claim it was the contract or was the basis of it. He said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. The Pomare
...although designated as master, takes himself out of the well settled rule that a master is entitled to no lien for his wages. Swift v. Knowles, 5 Cir., 100 F.2d 977; Burdine v. Walden, 5 Cir., 91 F.2d 321; Wandtke v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 381; Owen v. United States, 1945 A.M.C. 595; The......
-
Barber v. Motor Vessel" Blue Cat"
...no lien for his wages, but Knowles, constituting the entire crew of this small boat, as crew may claim one." Swift v. Knowles, 5 Cir., 1939, 100 F.2d 977, 978, 1939 AMC 148. Indeed, we have sounded the same theme. Burdine v. Walden (The Atlantan), 5 Cir., 1937, 91 F.2d 321, 322, 1937 AMC 11......
-
Vlavianos v. The Cypress
...although designated as master, takes himself out of the well settled rule that a master is entitled to no lien for his wages. Swift v. Knowles, 5 Cir., 100 F.2d 977; Burdine v. Walden, 5 Cir., 91 F.2d 321; Wandtke v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 74 F.2d 381; Owen v. United States, 1945 A.M.C. 595; The......