Armstrong v. Matson Navigation Co., No. 12349

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation183 F.2d 637
PartiesARMSTRONG et al. v. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al. CURRIE et al. v. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al. STEWART et al. v. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al.
Decision Date28 August 1950
Docket Number12352,No. 12349,No. 12350.

183 F.2d 637 (1950)

ARMSTRONG et al.
v.
MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al.
CURRIE et al.
v.
MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al.
STEWART et al.
v.
MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al.

Nos. 12349, 12352, No. 12350.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

July 18, 1950.

As Modified August 28, 1950.


183 F.2d 638

Albert Michelson and Herbert Chamberlin, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants Armstrong and Currie and others.

Gladstein, Andersen, Resner & Sawyer, Herbert Resner, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants Stewart and others.

Frank J. Hennessy, U.S.Atty., C. Elmer Collett, Asst. U.S.Atty., San Francisco, Cal. (Lillick, Geary, Olson, Adams & Charles, and James L. Adams, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel) for the United States.

Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Alan B. Aldwell, San Francisco, Cal., for Matson Navigation Co.

Before MATHEWS, ORR and LINDLEY,* Circuit Judges.

ORR, Circuit Judge.

These cases, consolidated on appeal, involve claims for war risk bonuses and maintenance for the periods in which appellants were interned on land by the Japanese Government during the recent war. Appellants were licensed and unlicensed crew members of the S. S. Malama. They sailed aboard that vessel on November 29, 1941, from San Francisco on a voyage described in the shipping articles as follows: "* * * from the port of San Francisco, California, to ports in the Philippine Islands by a route, including stops, as ordered by an agency or department of the United States Government and returning either eastbound or westbound via Cape of Good Hope as ordered by an agency or department of the United States Government, with a right to load or discharge at any intermediate ports, and back to a final Pacific Coast port of discharge and/or bunkering in the United States * * *." The vessel arrived in Honolulu on December 8, 1941, and sailed from Honolulu on December 16, 1941, on a route ordered by United States military and naval authorities. On January 1, 1942, while proceeding in the direction of New Zealand, the ship was attacked and sunk by Japanese planes. The crew were picked up by a Japanese raider and taken to Japan and China, where they were interned until their liberation on September 5, 1945. Subsequently they were repatriated to Pacific Coast ports in the United States.

Appellants were paid war risk bonuses for the period spent at sea west of the 180th meridian aboard Japanese ships and American repatriation ships. The claims here involve war risk bonuses for the period of internment on land and maintenance from the time of capture by the Japanese to the time of liberation.

In support of their claim for payment of war risk bonuses while interned on land, appellants rely on Agnew v. American President Lines, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 107; Federer v. American President Lines, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 111, and Griffin v. American President Lines, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 111, certoriari denied 339 U.S. 951, 70 S.Ct. 478, hereinafter referred to as the President Harrison cases, decided subsequent to entry of judgments by the trial court in the instant cases. Appellees attempt to distinguish the instant cases from the President Harrison cases on the basis of a difference in the wording of the riders attached to the shipping articles in each case. The riders under consideration here, it is said, expressly incorporate the provisions of supplementary collective bargaining agreements between appellee Matson Navigation Company and appellants' unions, and said supplementary agreement provisions negate any obligation to pay war bonuses during internment on land.

In the President Harrison cases the applicable provision of the riders was as follows: "In the event the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Hanock v. Eck, No. 9866.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 11 Septiembre 1950
    ...of fact as to Julia Eck are clearly erroneous, and that the record fails to adequately support a judgment against her. "A finding is 183 F.2d 637 `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm ......
1 cases
  • Hanock v. Eck, No. 9866.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 11 Septiembre 1950
    ...of fact as to Julia Eck are clearly erroneous, and that the record fails to adequately support a judgment against her. "A finding is 183 F.2d 637 `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm ......

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