Union Fish Co. v. Erickson

• Citation: 235 F. 385
• Decision Date: 14 August 1916
• Docket Number: 2680.
• Parties: UNION FISH CO. v. ERICKSON. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

235 F. 385

UNION FISH CO. v. ERICKSON. ^[1]

No. 2680.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

August 14, 1916

H. W Hutton, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

F. R Wall, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

The appellant, as shown by the record, is a California corporation having its principal place of business at the city of San Francisco, engaged in fishing, and having a salting station at Pirate Cove, Alaska, and owning at the times in question a certain American vessel called the Martha. The ground of the libel, which was filed in the court below by the appellee, is as follows:

'That in the month of May, 1914, at said San Francisco, said respondent and said libelant entered into an oral contract or agreement of hiring, wherein and whereby it was mutually agreed that said libelant was to proceed to Pirate Cove Alaska, and after arrival there to serve the respondent as master of said schooner Martha for a period of not less than one year, and also during said time to assist the manager of said respondent's salting station at said Pirate Cove when possible to do so without interfering with libelant's duties as said master of said schooner; that it was further agreed by said respondent and said libelant that said libelant was, during said time, to receive for said services wages at the rate of $55 a month and board and lodging for himself and his wife, and, at the end of not less than one year, transportation from said Pirate Cove to said San Francisco; that in accordance with said agreement said libelant proceeded to said Pirate Cove, where he arrived on or about the 12th day of June, 1914, and thereupon entered upon the performance of his duties as aforesaid, and continued to perform the same until the 18th day of July, 1914, when libelant was, by said respondent without fault on libelant's part, discharged from the services of said respondent, and libelant and his wife were thereupon by said respondent furnished with transportation from said Pirate Cove to said San Francisco; that said respondent has paid libelant the aforesaid wages at the rate of $55 a month up to and including the 15th day of July, 1914, and furnished board and lodging to said libelant and his wife up to August 5, 1914, and for no further or other time; that on said 18th day of July, and at all times since then, said libelant was and has been and still is ready, willing, and able to perform his part of said contract of hiring; that because of the breach of said contract of hiring as aforesaid libelant has been damaged in a sum of not less than $1,430, which sum he asks this court to award to him.'

Certain of the points relied upon by the appellant are based upon its contention that a part of the contract is maritime in character and a part nonmaritime. We see no merit in the contention. It is conceded, as a matter of course, that the employment of the appellee by the appellant as master of the schooner was a maritime contract; but it is said that, because by the terms of the contract the libelant was also to help the company's agent at Pirate Cove in certain work on shore, there was no jurisdiction in admiralty.

In Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico, 117 F. 99, 54 C.C.A. 485, this court affirmed the jurisdiction in admiralty of a contract made by men who acted as seamen to and from salmon fishing grounds in Alaska, to work as fishermen during the season, and assist in canning fish on shore, and in loading them on board for transportation, and notwithstanding that the men while engaged in fishing slept on shore and mended their nets and cared for the fish on shore.

In North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Larsen, 220 F. 93, 135 C.C.A. 661, the contract which was the basis of the libel provided for the services of the libelant as a seaman fisherman, beachman, trapman, ...