Harmon v. United States, 6454.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6454.,6454. |
| Citation | 59 F.2d 372 |
| Parties | HARMON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Samuel J. Tennant, Jr., of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
W. B. Spencer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Edouard F. Henriques, Sp. Asst. in Admiralty to U. S. Atty., and W. I. Connelly, Atty. U. S. Shipping Board, all of New Orleans, La., for the United States.
Before BRYAN, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.
The seventh paragraph of appellant's libel for personal injuries brought, without explanation of the delay, on September 14, 1930, sixteen months after the alleged injury and eleven months after he had given a full release, against the United States of America as the owner, etc., of the steamship Sapinero alleged: "Your libellant alleges that the respondent, its agents, officers, and employees, did secure from him a document which is in the nature of a full and complete release on October 1, 1929 by the payment of $1,000, but your libellant alleges that the said release taken by the United States Shipping Board should be set aside and annulled, and that all its effect should be voided and vacated, because at the time of taking of the said release the libellant was incapacitated both mentally and physically to an extent where he could no longer exercise clear discretion, all of which facts were known to the respondent, it having been advised of his condition, thru its own physicians and surgeons, and your libellant alleges that because of these facts and because of an inadequate consideration that the taking of the release constituted a fraud upon your libellant's rights."
The libel prayed that the release be set aside and annulled, and that libelant have judgment for $50,000, his damages.
Issue having been joined upon the validity of the release, much testimony was taken. The hearing ended, the District Judge found that the release was valid and binding and constituted a clear and complete bar to the suit. This appeal is from the decree entered in accordance with these findings.
Appellee insists that the judgment should be affirmed because the libelant has not tendered back the money received on the faith of the execution of the release, and because the proof fails to impeach its genuineness and binding force. Appellant, pressing upon our attention his character as seaman as imposing upon those dealing with him the duty of exercising the utmost fairness and good faith, and as protecting him from the consequences of his own improvidence or ignorance in contracting away his rights, insists that the circumstances under which the release was executed, his severe and disabling injuries, the consequent hysteria resulting, the pressure of financial straits, are such as to deprive the release of effect, except, as a receipt for the sum, leaving libelant his cause of action, and giving respondent the right to credit on the recovery the amount paid.
With the general principles invoked by appellant, that one who claims that a seaman has signed away his rights to what in law is due him must be prepared to take the burden of sustaining the release as fairly made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. Cormack Co
...be prepared to take the burden of sustaining the release as fairly made with and fully comprehended by the seaman.' Harmon v. United States, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 372, 373. We hold, therefore, that the burden is upon one who sets up a seaman's release to show that it was executed freely, without ......
-
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Premeaux
...his act. The Topsy, D.C., 44 F. 631; De Lisi v. Booth & Co., D.C., 271 F. 47; Pfeil v. United States, 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 923; Harmon v. United States, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 372; McKenney v. Swayne & Hoyt, 5 Cir., 104 F.2d 20; Ames v. American Export Lines, D.C., 41 F. Supp. 930. In such cases the fa......
-
Hume v. Moore-McCormack Lines
...the burden will be on the appellee to sustain the release "as fairly made with and fully comprehended by the seaman." (Harmon v. United States, 5 Cir., 59 F.2d 372, 373; Bonici v. Standard Oil Co., supra); in that connection, it will be significant, particularly because of the meager consid......
-
Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.
...by the seaman." Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 247-48, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942) (quoting Harmon v. United States, 59 F.2d 372, 373 (5th Cir.1932)). For purposes of this appeal, Huseman acknowledges that the paragraph explaining benefits in the Terms of Employment is ......