PANAMA TRANSPORT COMPANY v. Greenberg, 5770.

Decision Date05 May 1961
Docket NumberNo. 5770.,5770.
PartiesPANAMA TRANSPORT COMPANY et al., Defendants, Appellants, v. Nathan GREENBERG, Plaintiff, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Walter X. Connor, New York City, Joseph F. Dolan, Boston, Mass., James P. O'Neill, and Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New York City, on the brief, for appellants.

Daniel J. Hourihan, Boston, Mass., for appellee.

Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A Spanish seaman and member of the crew of the S.S. Esso Rochester was injured on board his vessel on December 6, 1958, while it lay in the harbor of Portland, Maine. On December 9, 1958, a member of the bar employed by the plaintiff-appellee, who is a member, inter alia, of the Maine and Massachusetts bars practicing in Boston, visited the seaman in a Portland hospital and obtained the seaman's signature to a retainer in the following language:

"I hereby retain Nathan Greenberg, attorney-at-law, of Boston, Massachusetts and New York, New York, to represent me respecting my claim against the S.S. Esso Rochester its owners and operators, and to collect damages on my behalf. For such services rendered, I agree to pay my said attorney a fee not to exceed services rendered. I agree to pay my said attorney a fee not to exceed one-third of any amount collected by way of court verdict or settlement.
"Dated this 9th day of December, 1958."

Subsequently the seaman was visited by representatives of the defendants, one of them the owner of the vessel and the other its husbanding agent, and eventually on February 10, 1959, the seaman wrote the plaintiff a letter discharging him as counsel on the ground that his services were no longer required.

The plaintiff-appellee then brought this action on the law side of the court below under its diversity jurisdiction for wrongful interference by the defendant-appellants with his advantageous contractual relationship with the seaman. After trial without a jury the court gave judgment for the plaintiff and the defendants appealed.

The appeal suggests a number of interesting questions but we do not reach them for lack of jurisdiction.

The allegations of the complaint with respect to the diversity of the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy between them are adequate to show federal jurisdiction. But the plaintiff testified categorically that, in his opinion based on his experience as a specialist in suits in admiralty for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Limited
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 31, 1970
    ...Marine Corp., 211 F.Supp. 320 (D.C.N.Y.1962); Greenberg v. Panama Transport Co., 185 F.Supp. 320 (1960), vacated on other grounds, 1 Cir., 290 F.2d 125, cert. den., 368 U.S. 891, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 88 (1961); Farmer v. Standard Dredging Corp., 167 F.Supp. 381 Under the general maritime......
  • Jimenz Puig v. Avis Rent-A-Car System
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 24, 1978
    ...356, 360-61 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879, 95 S.Ct. 144, 42 L.Ed.2d 119 (1974); James v. Lusby, supra; Panama Transport Co. v. Greenberg, 290 F.2d 125, 126 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 891, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 88 (1961). Compare Emland Builders, Inc. v. Shea, 359 F.2d 927......
  • Nationwide Charters and Conventions, Inc. v. Garber
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • April 25, 1966
    ...63 S.Ct. 573, 87 L.Ed. 838 (1943), Greenberg v. Panama Transport Co., 185 F.Supp. 320 (D.C. Mass.1960), rev'd on other grounds 290 F.2d 125 (1st Cir. 1960), cert. den. 368 U.S. 891, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 88 (1961), Hazel Stanley, 45 T.C.No. 54 (March 17, 1966), or in areas in which they m......
  • F & S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Jensen, 7470
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 5, 1964
    ...of the requisite amount in controversy." See, also McAleer v. McNally Pittsburg Mfg. Corp., 3 Cir., 307 F.2d 220; Panama Transport Co. v. Greenberg, 1 Cir., 290 F.2d 125, cert. denied 368 U.S. 891, 82 S.Ct. 143, 7 L.Ed.2d 88; Matthiesen v. Northwestern Mut'l Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 286 F.2d 775; ......
  • 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