Heros v. Cockinos

• Citation: 177 F.2d 570
• Decision Date: 07 November 1949
• Docket Number: No. 5920.,5920.
• Parties: HEROS et al. v. COCKINOS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

177 F.2d 570 (1949)

HEROS et al. v. COCKINOS et al.

No. 5920.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 17, 1949.

Decided November 7, 1949.

Burt M. Morewitz and J. L. Morewitz, Newport News, Va. (Morewitz & Morewitz, Newport News, Va., on the brief), for appellants.

Hugh S. Meredith, Norfolk, Va. (Vandeventer & Black, Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PARKER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a seaman's wage case for lack of jurisdiction. The libellants were eleven Greek seamen who had signed on the Greek vessel Eugenia Chandris. These seamen were discharged in Barcelona, Spain, on August 4, 1948, and suit was commenced in their behalf when they returned to the United States on August 31. Since the seamen did not return with the vessel on the voyage which ended in the waters of the United States and were not present here when the suit was instituted, the learned judge below was of opinion that the court was without jurisdiction of the controversy.

It appears from the pleadings and the depositions taken in the court below that all except three of the seamen were employed on the vessel in ports of the United States and were paid advances on unearned wages at the time of their employment in violation of the provisions of the Seamen's Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 599. It appears, also, that these illegal advances were deducted from settlements made at the end of voyages terminating in the United States and that further advances were then made on unearned wages, and further that, after suit was instituted, respondents made answer to the libel in connection with the taking of testimony of the ship's officers and paid into court the sum of $1,723.24 as the amount of wages due libellants at the time of their discharge. Under these circumstances we think it clear that the court had jurisdiction, even though the final voyage of the seamen, because of their discharge, did not end in the United States. There was a deduction of advances in the United States in violation of our statute, there were settlements made while the vessel was in the territorial waters of the United States, in which these illegal advances were deducted in violation of the same statute; and, finally, the vessel was in waters of the United States at the time suit was instituted and the alleged balance due on wages after the advances had been deducted was paid into court for libellants. The case is governed by our recent decision in Korthinos v. Niarchos, 4 Cir., 175 F.2d 730, 733, where we said: "We are not impressed by the reasons given for declining jurisdiction. The court could not decline to adjudicate rights of seamen under contracts made in this country and settlements made here, even though a foreign vessel and foreign seamen were involved, see Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U.S. 169, 23 S.Ct. 821, 47 L.Ed. 1002; Lakos v. Saliaris, 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 440; and we see no reason why recovery of wages should be limited to the last voyage and settlements be upheld which involve violation of statutes relating to seamen's contracts. 46 U.S.C.A. § 599 not only forbids paying any seaman his wages `in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same,' but prescribes a criminal penalty for doing so. It is clear that advances made in violation of this section may not be credited against wages due the seamen for the voyage. Lakos v. Saliaris, supra, 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 440. And it seems equally clear that `good cause' for setting aside a wage settlement, or even a release given by a seaman in a settlement for wages, as provided by 46 U.S.C.A. § 597, is that the settlement does not include the full amount due after the advances forbidden by statute are eliminated. It would in large measure emasculate the statute to hold that a vessel could escape liability for its violation by paying the seaman the remainder of his wages at the end of the voyage. See Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Lucas, 258 U.S. 266, 42 S.Ct. 308, 66 L.Ed. 614; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 248, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239; Also Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296; D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi, 328 U.S. 108, 66 S.Ct. 925, 90 L.Ed. 1114 167 A.L.R. 208; Guess v. Montague, 4 Cir., 140 F.2d 500. Cf. The Samuel E. Spring, D. C., 27 F. 764."

It is to be noted that 46 U.S.C.A. § 599 expressly provides, not only that the payment of such advance wages shall...