Baker v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 23527-R.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 23527-R.,23527-R. |
| Citation | 57 F. Supp. 207 |
| Parties | BAKER v. MOORE-McCORMACK LINES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Andersen & Resner, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Lillick, Geary, Olson & Charles, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
Suit was commenced by plaintiff in the State Court against the Moore-McCormack Lines for damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, and for wages and maintenance.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff was a member of the crew of the S. S. Malcolm M. Stewart and was injured by the carelessness and negligence of defendant in failing to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work and in carelessly and negligently permitting mechanical appliances on the boiler to be improperly adjusted, and that the boilers were working improperly and in an unseaworthy manner.
The defendant, Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., filed its petition for removal to this Court, setting forth diversity of citizenship and the proper jurisdictional amount, and further alleging that the vessel was owned, managed, operated and navigated by the United States of America by and through the Administrator, War Shipping Administration; that the defendant had a service agreement with the United States of America which was entered into as of October 19, 1941, whereunder it procured the master and members of the crew for the United States, and that the master and members of the crew were employees of the United States and not of the defendant Moore-McCormack Lines.
The suit was duly removed to this Court and thereupon plaintiff filed its motion to remand, contending that the Jones Act (incorporating the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 56) gave the State Court concurrent jurisdiction and prevented removal of the action.
At the hearing on the motion to remand, defendants introduced the Articles of Agreement between plaintiff and the master of the vessel as well as the Service Agreement between the defendant and the United States of America, and produced testimony in support of the petition for removal.
Pursuant to the "Service Agreement" between the United States and Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., the defendant was the general agent of the United States with respect to the vessel. Murray v. American Export Lines, Inc., D.C. S.D.N.Y., 53 F.Supp. 861, 1943 A.M.C. 1426. As such agent of the United States, the defendant is suable for its own torts. Brady v. Roosevelt S. S. Co., Inc., 317 U. S. 575...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hust v. Cormack Lines
...Lines, City Ct., 50 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1944 A.M.C. 1169; Steele v. American South African Line, D.C., 62 F.Supp. 636; Baker v. Moore-McCormack Lines, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 207; Conlon v. Hammond Shipping Co., D.C., 55 F.Supp. 635; Williams v. American Foreign S.S. Corp., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 900, 1946 A.......
-
Cosmopolitan Shipping Co v. Allister
...394, 68 L.Ed. 748; Nolan v. General Seafoods Corp., 1 Cir., 112 F.2d 515, 517; The Norland, 9 Cir., 101 F.2d 967; Baker v. Moore-McCormack Lines, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 207, 208; Eggleston v. Republic Steel Corp., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 658, 659; Gardiner v. Agwilines, Inc., .d.C., 29 F.Supp. 7 It shou......
-
Rosario v. Waterman Steamship Corporation
...275 U.S. 550, 48 S.Ct. 114, 72 L. Ed. 420; Steele v. American South African Line, D.C.N.D.Cal., 62 F.Supp. 636; Baker v. Moore-McCormack Lines, D.C. N.D.Cal., 57 F.Supp. 207; Cf. Gunderson v. Barber Asphalt Corporation, D.C. E.D.N.Y., 71 F.Supp. 40. The question is whether defendants have e......
-
Gunderson v. Barber Asphalt Corporation
...least two decisions (Steele v. American South African Line, D.C., S.D.N.D., Cal., 1945, 62 F.Supp. 636; and Baker v. Moore-McCormack Lines, D.C., S.D.N.D., Cal., 1944, 57 F.Supp. 207) are squarely in favor of an affirmative answer. At least one case suggests that the answer should be in the......