Moe v. Eagle Ocean Transp. Co., Civ. A. No. 1151.

Decision Date02 June 1950
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1151.
Citation91 F. Supp. 910
PartiesMOE v. EAGLE OCEAN TRANSP. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Mandell & Wright (Herman Wright), of Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

Lockhart, Hughes & Watson (Edward W. Watson), of Galveston, Tex., for defendant.

KENNERLY, Chief Judge.

This suit, brought under the Jones Act, Section 688, Title 46 U.S.C.A., in a State Court, has been removed into this Court. Plaintiff moves to remand. Defendant, in a very able brief, insists that under the Judicial Code of September 1, 1948 (Title 28) a suit under the Jones Act may now be removed into this Court. It insists that Gutierrez v. Pacific Tankers, Inc., D.C., 81 F.Supp. 278, was not correctly decided.

With this, I cannot agree. A careful reading of Section 6881 convinces me that even with the change of wording of the old Section 71 of Title 28, U.S.C.A., which defendant points out,2 and notwithstanding the wording of Section 1441 of the Judicial Code,3 suits filed in a State Court under the Jones Act are not removable to a United States District Court. Section 688 confers upon seamen et al. the same rights and all the rights enjoyed by persons suing a railroad, its receivers or trustees, i. e., the right to sue in a State Court, and such suit is not removable.

There is nothing to indicate that the Congress, by changing the wording pointed out, meant to change the well-settled rule with respect to removal from State Courts to the Federal Courts of suits under the Jones Act.

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is granted. Let proper Order be drawn and presented.

1 Section 688 is as follows (italics mine): "Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply; and in case of the death of any seaman as a result of any such personal injury the personal representative of such seaman may maintain an action for damages at law with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States conferring or regulating the right of action for death in the case of railway employees shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located."

2...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Preston v. Grant Advertising, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 14 March 1967
    ...Scott Corp., N.D.Ill.1956, 144 F.Supp. 423; Crespo v. Pacific-Atlantic S.S. Co., S.D. N.Y.1953, 117 F.Supp. 504; Moe v. Eagle Ocean Transp. Co., S.D.Tex.1950, 91 F. Supp. 910; Moltke v. Intercontinental Shipping Corp., S.D.N.Y.1949, 86 F.Supp. 662, 663; Greene v. United Fruit Co., S.D.N.Y.1......
  • United States v. Perfetti, 15186.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 27 June 1950
  • Crespo v. Pacific-Atlantic SS Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 16 November 1953
    ...County of New York, is granted. Settle order. 1 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. 2 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446. 3 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447. 4 Moe v. Eagle Ocean Transp. Co., D.C. Tex, 91 F.Supp. 910. 5 Pate v. Standard Dredging Corp., 5 Cir., 193 F.2d 6 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(c). 7 Baker v. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n, D. C......

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