Murray v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
Decision Date | 16 September 1913 |
Docket Number | 1,232. |
Citation | 207 F. 688 |
Parties | MURRAY v. PACIFIC COAST S.S. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Bone & Wright and Grant A. Dentler, all of Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff.
Farrell Kane & Stratton, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
This cause is for decision upon plaintiff's demurrer to the defendant's answer, alleging the unconstitutionality, as between plaintiff and defendant, of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state of Washington (Laws of 1911, p 345), under which it is claimed plaintiff sues.
The action is one in personam to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff, received, while in the employ of the defendant as a longshoreman, at work stowing away wheat then being loaded in the hold of one of defendant's vessels lying at the wharf in Tacoma. The injury is charged to have been caused by defendant's negligence.
In plaintiff's amended complaint it is alleged that the defendant is a California corporation, maintaining an office for the transaction of its business in the county of Pierce state of Washington, and engaged in transporting freight by water from and to the port of Tacoma. Paragraph X of the complaint alleges:
'That, at the time said injury was inflicted upon the plaintiff as aforesaid, the defendant was in default in the payment to the accident funds used for the compensation of injured workmen of its percentage of its total pay roll, according to the schedule made and provided by law, and demand for such payment had been made upon the defendant by the State Industrial Insurance Department of the state of Washington long prior to the time said injury was inflicted upon said plaintiff as aforesaid.'
The Washington Compensation Law provides an industrial insurance for workmen injured in certain employments classed in the act as 'extra hazardous.' The fund from which said workmen are to be paid is raised by a tax upon the employers, based on a varying table of percentages on their pay rolls for the year. Stevedoring and longshoring are classed as 'extra hazardous,' and the tax on these employers is fixed at '.030.' The act provides:
The answer alleges that this act is unconstitutional, as between the parties to this suit, because it contravenes sections 1 and 2, art. 3, section 8, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States, the fifth, seventh, and section 1 of the fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and section 21, art. 1, of the Constitution of the state of Washington.
Plaintiff relies upon the following authorities: Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113-134, 24 L.Ed. 77; State v. Heldenbrand, 62 Neb. 136, 87 N.W. 25, 89 Am.St.Rep. 743; Danforth v. Groton Water Co., 178 Mass. 472, 59 N.E. 1033, 86 Am.St.Rep. 495; Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N.E. 582, 69 L.R.A. 875, 71 Am.St.Rep. 301; State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen, 65 Wash. 156, 117 P. 1101, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 466; J. L. Stoll v. Pacific Coast S.S. co. (D.C.) 205 F. 169; American Steamboat Co. v. Philip B. Chace, Adm'r, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 522, 21 L.Ed. 369; Schoonmaker et al. v. Gilmore et al., 102 U.S. 118, 26 L.Ed. 95; Garcia y Leon v. Galceran et al., 78 U.S. 185, 20 L.Ed. 75; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U.S. 256, 14 Sup.Ct. 1019, 38 L.Ed. 981; Moses Taylor v. Hammons, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 411, 18 L.Ed. 397; Steamboat Ad. Hine v. Mathew R. Trevor, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 555, 18 L.Ed. 451; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. John McCaffrey, 177 U.S. 638, 20 Sup.Ct. 824, 44 L.Ed. 921.
Defendant relies upon the following cases: Steamboat Ad. Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555, 18 L.Ed. 451; Gerrity v. The Kate Cann (D.C.) 2 Fed. 241; Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U.S. 626, 26 L.Ed. 1192; The Strabo (D.C.) 90 F. 110; Grimsley v. Hankins (D.C.) 46 F. 400; Levy v. McCartee, 6 Pet. 108, 8 L.Ed. 337; Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1, 19 Sup.Ct. 583, 43 L.Ed. 873; Cowhick v. Shingle, 5 Wyo. 87, 37 P. 692, 25 L.R.A. 608, 63 Am.St.Rep. 17; Workman v. New York, 179 U.S. 552, 21 Sup.Ct. 212, 45 L.Ed. 314; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U.S. 1, 13 Sup.Ct. 500, 37 L.Ed. 345; The Chusan, 2 Story, 455, Fed. Cas. No. 2,717; The Roanoke, 189 U.S. 185, 23 Sup.Ct. 491, 47 L.Ed. 770; The Lyndhurst (D.C.) 48 F. 839; New Zealand Ins. Co. v. Earnmoor S.S. Co., 79 F. 368, 24 C.C.A. 644; Laidlaw v. O.R. & N. Co., 81 F. 876, 26 C.C.A. 665; Pacific Coast S.S. Co. v. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 94 F. 181, 36 C.C.A. 135; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 Sup.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932, 14 Ann.Cas. 764; Ex parte Wood (C.C.) 155 F. 190.
This cause was begun in the state court and removed to this court. Paragraph X of the complaint (above quoted) brings the action within the exception named in the Compensation Act.
Section 2 of article 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides that the judicial power of the United States shall extend 'to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. ' The Federal Judiciary Act provides:
'Section 563, R.S.; volume 4, Fed. Stat. Ann. p. 220 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 457).
In the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1091 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 136), this paragraph is amended to read:
'Of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy where the common law is competent to give it; of all seizures on land or waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; of all prizes brought into the United States; and of all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize. ' Section 24, par. 3, p. 8.
The Judiciary Act further provided:
'Section 711, R.S.; Fed. Stat. Ann. vol. 4, p. 494 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 577).
This provision has been carried into the Judicial Code, without change, as section 256 (pages 87 and 88).
Defendant contends that, under the Constitution and provisions of the Judiciary Act (section 563, R.S., above quoted), the subject-matter of the present suit being such as to permit a suit in admiralty, either in personam or in rem, the jurisdiction of the admiralty court is exclusive, and that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schuede v. Zenith S.S. Co.
... ... upon the subject. Murray v. Chicago & Northwestern ... Railroad Co. (C.C.) 62 F. 24; The ... the state law ... A ... careful reading of Murray v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co ... (D.C.) 207 F. 688, District Court of the Western ... ...
-
Sieracki v. Seas Shipping Co.
...34 S.Ct. 733, 58 L.Ed. 1208, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 1157. The court has jurisdiction either in admiralty or on the law side, Murray v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., D.C., 207 F. 688. The plaintiff asks the court to find that the accident occurred by reason of unseaworthiness of the vessel and I make th......