Mahnich v. Southern Steamship Co., 7928.

Decision Date14 July 1942
Docket NumberNo. 7928.,7928.
Citation129 F.2d 857
PartiesAnton MAHNICH, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Abraham E. Freedman, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Freedman & Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Thomas F. Mount and Joseph W. Henderson, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Rawle & Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BIGGS, MARIS, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The decree of the court below is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Kirkpatrick, 45 F.Supp. 839.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mahnich v. Southern Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 31 d1 Janeiro d1 1944
    ...indemnity to petitioner, but gave judgment in his favor for maintenance and cure. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 129 F.2d 857, 135 F.2d 602, by a divided court, resting its decision on the statement quoted from the opinion in The Pinar Del Rio, supra, 277 U.S. at page ......
  • Luksich v. Misetich
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 20 d1 Março d1 1944
    ...No. 2, 2 Cir., 241 F. 831, 835; Mahnich v. Southern S. S. Co., D.C.Pa., 45 F.Supp. 839, 841, affirmed upon opinion of trial judge, 3 Cir., 129 F.2d 857; The C. S. Holmes, D.C.Wash., 209 F. 970, 975. Cf. Calmar S. S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U. S. 525, 530, 58 S.Ct. 651, 82 L.Ed. 993; Loverich v......
  • Wounick v. Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 17 d5 Junho d5 1960
    ...v. Walling, 3 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 662. 5 See Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., D.C. E.D.Pa.1941, 45 F.Supp. 839, affirmed per curiam, 3 Cir., 1942, 129 F.2d 857, reargued and affirmed, 3 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 602, reversed 1944, 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed. 561. In that case the Supreme ......
  • Mahnich v. Southern SS Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 5 d3 Maio d3 1943
    ...Our conclusion is, therefore, that this Court was right in its affirmance of the decree of the Court below upon the first hearing. 1942, 129 F.2d 857. We have no disposition to narrow the basis of recovery under the maritime law for injuries sustained by the seaman while in the service of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT