Union Fish Co v. Erickson

Decision Date07 January 1919
Docket NumberNo. 76,76
PartiesUNION FISH CO. v. ERICKSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. G. S. Arnold and William Denman, both of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 308-311 intentionally omitted] Mr. Charles J. Heggerty, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Erickson filed a libel in admiralty in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, alleging that by an oral contract with the petitioner, owner of the vessel Martha, he engaged to proceed to Pirate Cove, Alaska, and after arrival there to serve for a year as master of the vessel, and perform certain duties in connection therewith for an agreed compensation. The libel averred that he proceeded to Pirate Cove, and performed his duties under the contract until he was wrongfully discharged by the respondent. Libelant sought to recover damages for breach of contract. An answer was filed denying the alledged contract, and averring that libelant was discharged because of his wrongful conduct.

A decree was rendered in favor of libelant in the District Court; upon appeal that decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 235 Fed. 385, 148 C. C. A. 647.

The question presented and argued here concerns the application of the California statute of frauds, which it is alleged rendered the contract void because not to be performed within one year from the making thereof. The Civil Code of California provides (section 1624):

'The following contracts are invalid, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, or by his agent:

'1. An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.'

The contract of the master was of a maritime character. This does not seem to be controverted by the petitioner. See The Boston, Fed. Cas. No. 1669; The William H. Hoag, 168 U. S. 443, 18 Sup. Ct. 114, 42 L. Ed. 537. We have, then, a maritime contract for services to be performed principally upon the sea and the question is can such engagement be nullified by the local laws of a state, where the contract happens to be entered into, so as to prevent its enforcement in an admiralty court of the United States?

The Constitution (article 3, § 2) extends the judicial power of the United States to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Admiralty jurisdiction under the federal Constitution 'embraces,' says Mr. Justice Story in his treatise on the Constitution, 'two great classes of cases—one dependent upon locality and the other upon the nature of the contract. In the latter class are embraced maritime contracts and services, rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation.' Story on the Constitution (4th Ed.) § 1666.

This court has had occasion to consider the nature and extent of admiralty jurisdiction as it was intended to be conferred by the Constitution. In The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558, 22 L. Ed. 654, the subject was much considered, and Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court, said:

'One thing, however, is unquestionable; the Constitution must have referred to a system of law coextensive with, and operating uniformly in, the whole country. It certainly could not have been the intention to place the rules and limits of maritime law under the disposal and regulation of the several states.'

This principle was reiterated in Workman v. New York City, 179 U. S. 552, 560, 21 Sup. Ct. 212, 45 L. Ed. 314. In that case it was declared that neither local law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman Fund Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 28 February 1955
    ...21 Wall. 558, 22 L.Ed. 654; Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 298, 98 L.Ed. 290. But cf. Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U.S. 308, 39 S.Ct. 112, 63 L.Ed. 261. 8. See, e.g., Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383, 61 S.Ct. 687, 85 L.Ed. 903; The Hamilton, 207 U.S. 398, 28 S.Ct. 133, ......
  • Home Ins. Co. of New York v. MERCHANTS'TRANSP. CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 29 May 1926
    ...was maritime, the court upheld jurisdiction. In Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 235 F. 385, 148 C. C. A. 647, affirmed in 248 U. S. 308, 39 S. Ct. 112, 63 L. Ed. 261, where the services contracted for were mainly upon the sea, though provision for nonmaritime service was also made therein, in a......
  • Jansson v. Swedish American Line
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 6 November 1950
    ...Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. v. Hicks, 1932, 285 U.S. 502, 514, 52 S.Ct. 450, 454, 76 L.Ed. 903. In Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 1919, 248 U.S. 308, 39 S.Ct. 112, 63 L.Ed. 261, it was held that the California Statute of Frauds could not be applied to invalidate an oral maritime contract made......
  • Vitco v. Joncich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 29 April 1955
    ...others an agreement that "by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof." See Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 1919, 248 U.S. 308, 39 S.Ct. 112, 63 L.Ed. 261. The result is that libelant is entitled to recover not only cure and maintenance, as stated above, but also a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 7
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...not by the law of Texas. S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917); Peters v. Veasey, 251 U.S. 121, (1919); Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U.S. 308 (1919). The laws of Texas have no application to the case. There is considerable conflict in the decisions on the question of recovery by mor......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT