Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., No. 13291.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | HOLMES, BORAH and STRUM, Circuit |
| Citation | 188 F.2d 773 |
| Docket Number | No. 13291. |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1951 |
| Parties | BODDEN v. McCORMICK SHIPPING CORP. et al. THE SANS PEUR. |
188 F.2d 773 (1951)
BODDEN
v.
McCORMICK SHIPPING CORP. et al. THE SANS PEUR.
No. 13291.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 8, 1951.
Bertram R. Coleman, Miami, Fla., for appellant.
H. N. Boureau, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
William S. Tyson, Solicitor, Bessie Margolin, Asst. Solicitor, William A. Lowe and Joseph D. Mladinov, Attys., U. S. Department of Labor, all of Washington, D. C. (Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Attys., Birmingham, Ala., on the brief), for the Secretary of Labor as amicus curiae.
Before HOLMES, BORAH and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
STRUM, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal in admiralty from a decree dismissing a third amended libel which seeks to recover sums alleged to be due as overtime wages for labor performed by libellant upon the yacht "Sans Peur." The question is whether or not said labor is within the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., libellant having already been paid his straight time, or regular wages, but not time and a half for overtime as required by sec. 7(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 207(a).
The "Sans Peur" was originally built and used as a private yacht. During World War II she was taken over by the Canadian Government and used as a training ship for Navy personnel. Some of her interior fittings were removed to make her more suitable for a training ship, but her identity as a yacht was left undisturbed. Shortly after May 25, 1947, Frank Leslie Fraser, one of the individual respondents herein, purchased said yacht for the purpose of restoring her to her former condition and selling her at a profit, intending at the time to sell her to a prospective purchase in the Dominican Republic. Fraser employed libellant to inspect the yacht prior to purchase, for which purpose libellant travelled from Miami, Florida to Halifax, Nova Scotia. After the purchase by Fraser, the yacht was moved under her own power from Halifax to Miami, libellant acting as chief engineer on the voyage. Upon arrival at Miami, libellant was further employed by Fraser to perform the necessary labor of restoration, consisting of re-installing fittings, repairing flooring, wall-paneling, electrical work, engine room repairs, and other labor necessary to make her more saleable as a yacht, all of which was done. This labor is the basis of libellant's claim. After she was restored, the vessel was sold to McCormick Shipping Corporation, and was moved under her own power to Panama, where she was registered as a Panamanian vessel. When the original libel was filed she had returned to Miami.
The trial court dismissed the libel, holding that transportation of the vessel from
This test, however, was rejected by the Supreme Court in Powell v. United States Cartridge Company, 339 U.S. 497, 70 S.Ct. 755, 94 L.Ed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Raines, No. 15977.
...460; Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U.S. 178, 184, 66 S. Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607; Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 5 Cir., 188 F.2d 773, 775, he was therefore subject to the Act, and the cause must be reversed for further and not inconsistent Reversed and remanded. ...
-
Shultz v. Reed's Shipyard of Boothbay, Inc., Civ. A. No. 10-130.
...By Section 3(i) ships are expressly included in the statutory definition of "goods." See Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F.2d 773, 775 (5th Cir. 1951); Slover v. Wathen, 140 F.2d 258, 259 (4th Cir. 1944); Bracey v. Luray, 138 F.2d 8, 11 (4th Cir. 1943). By Section 3(j) &qu......
-
Wirtz v. Broward Marine, Inc., No. 23232.
...meaning of the Act. From this the employers did not appeal. In view of the holding of this Court in Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F.2d 773 (1951) it is apparent that such an appeal would have had a poor chance of success. The Court further concluded that the employers' business is......
-
Mitchell v. Raines, No. 15977.
...460; Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 327 U.S. 178, 184, 66 S. Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607; Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 5 Cir., 188 F.2d 773, 775, he was therefore subject to the Act, and the cause must be reversed for further and not inconsistent Reversed and remanded. ...
-
Shultz v. Reed's Shipyard of Boothbay, Inc., Civ. A. No. 10-130.
...By Section 3(i) ships are expressly included in the statutory definition of "goods." See Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F.2d 773, 775 (5th Cir. 1951); Slover v. Wathen, 140 F.2d 258, 259 (4th Cir. 1944); Bracey v. Luray, 138 F.2d 8, 11 (4th Cir. 1943). By Section 3(j) &qu......
-
Wirtz v. Broward Marine, Inc., No. 23232.
...meaning of the Act. From this the employers did not appeal. In view of the holding of this Court in Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F.2d 773 (1951) it is apparent that such an appeal would have had a poor chance of success. The Court further concluded that the employers' business is......