Buckley v. Oceanic SS Co.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 4369.,4369. |
| Citation | 5 F.2d 545 |
| Parties | BUCKLEY v. OCEANIC S. S. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
S. T. Hogevoll, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Irving H. Frank and Nathan H. Frank, both of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
HUNT, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Plaintiff in error contends that in suing for two days' pay for each day's delay in payment of wages claimed to be due to him as an able seaman (section 4529, Rev. St. Comp. St. § 8320) his action is for a penalty, and therefore governed by section 1047, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1712), which provides that no suit for any penalty accruing under the laws of the United States shall be maintained except where otherwise specially provided, unless the same is commenced within five years from the time when the penalty accrued.
Section 4529 of the Revised Statutes provides: "* * * Every master or owner who refuses or neglects to make payment in the manner hereinbefore mentioned without sufficient cause shall pay to the seaman a sum equal to two days' pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed beyond the respective periods, which sum shall be recoverable as wages in any claim made before the court. * * *" The nature of that statute (section 4529), whether it is remedial or penal, has been considered by this and other courts, which have held that sums recoverable under its provisions are treated as wages — compensation to seamen, rather than punishment of the master. Gerber v. Spencer (C. C. A.) 278 F. 886; Cox v. Lykes Brothers, 237 N. Y. 376, 143 N. E. 226.
Plaintiff, having availed himself of the right given by the Admiralty Act to bring his action in the law court, is bound to conform to the statutes which by the lex fori regulate the means to enforce the right. Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, 130 U. S. 693, 9 S. Ct. 690, 32 L. Ed. 1080; Bonam v. Southern Menhaden Corporation (D. C.) 284 F. 360; McGrath v. Panama R. Co. (C. C. A.) 298 F. 303.
It is said that plaintiff below was shipped in violation of sections 8300, Compiled Statutes (), and 8306 (R. S. § 4516, as amended by Act of December 21, 1898, and Act of March 4, 1915). Section 8300 requires a master, before proceeding on a voyage, to make an agreement in writing or print with every seaman whom he carries as one of the crew, which shall contain, among other things, number and description of the crew, specifying their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooklyn Sav Bank v. Neil Dize v. Maddrix Arsenal Bldg Corporation v. Greenberg 8212 1945
...overtime compensation constitute a single right, see Post et al. v. Fleming et al., supra; Birbalas v. Cuneo, supra. Cf. Buckley v. Oceanic S.S. Co., 9 Cir., 5 F.2d 545. 22 See statement by Secretary of Labor, Joint Hearings, Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, and Commi......
-
Bank of Scotland v. Sabay
...is fully consistent with the notion that a seaman has a 'sacred lien' against a vessel for his earnings"); Buckley v. Oceanic S.S. Co., 5 F.2d 545, 546 (9th Cir.1925) (because penalty wages claim "is for extra wages as incidental to the wages proper, it stands upon no different basis than d......
-
Alier v. Sea Land Serv., Inc.
...28, United States Code, Section 1333, the statute was not to be taken to provide for a penalty. Notwithstanding, in Buckley v. Oceanic SS. Co., 5 F.2d 545 (9 Cir. 1925), the holding was that the statute was a penalty intended as compensation to seamen rather than punishment of the master. T......
-
Loggins v. Steel Const. Co.
...Statute 4529, Sec. 596, Title 46 U.S.C.A., Gerber v. Spencer, 9 Cir., 278 F. 886; The Trader, D.C., 17 F.2d 623; Buckley v. Oceanic Steamship Co., 9 Cir., 5 F.2d 545; Feldman v. American Palestine Line, D.C., 25 F.2d 1002; Collie v. Fergusson, 281 U.S. 52, 54, 50 S.Ct. 189, 74 L.Ed. It is t......