Peters v. Veasey

Decision Date08 December 1919
Docket NumberNo. 77,77
PartiesPETERS et al. v. VEASEY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. George Janvier and William C. Dufour, both of New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Walter S. Penfield, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Louisiana (No. 20, Acts La. 1914), the Supreme Court of that state affirmed a judgment against plaintiffs in error and in favor of Veasey, who claimed to have suffered injuries, August 6, 1915, while employed by Henry and Eugene Peters as a longshoreman on board the Seria, then lying at New Orleans. The steamer was being unloaded. While upon her and engaged in that work, Veasey accidentally fell through a hatchway. Veasey v. Peters, 142 La. 1012, 77 South. 948.

A compensation policy in favor of Peters, issued by the AEtna Life Insurance Company, was in force when the accident occurred.

The work in which defendant in error was engaged is maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime contract; the injuries which he received were likewise maritime; and the rights and liabilities of the parties in connection therewith were matters clearly within the admiralty jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the Workmen's Compensation Law of the state had no application when the accident occurred. Atlantic Transport Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U. S. 52, 59, 60, 61, 34 Sup. Ct. 733, 58 L. Ed. 1208, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1157; Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 217, 218, 37 Sup. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086, L. R. A. 1918C, 451, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 900.

Clause third, section 24, of the judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1091) confers upon the District Courts of the United States jurisdiction '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.' Clause third, section 256, provides that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States shall be exclusive in '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.' By an act approved October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 395, c. 97 [Comp. St. 1918, §§ 991, 1233]), Congress directed that both of these clauses be amended by inserting after 'saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • State of Washington v. Dawson Co Industrial Accident Commission of the State of California v. James Rolph Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1924
    ...the Workmen's Compensation Law of any state.' 2 28 Sup. Ct. 414, 52 L. Ed. 508, 13 Ann. Cas. 1215. 3 Compare Peters v. Veasey, 251 U. S. 121, 40 Sup. Ct. 65, 64 L. Ed. 180 (a stevedore); also Danielsen v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 235 N. Y. 439, 139 N. E. 567, certiorari denied 262 U. S.......
  • United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 31, 1920
    ...similar to that found in the Hepburn Act of 1906 or the Employers' Liability Act (Comp. St. Secs. 8657-8665). In Peters v. Veasey, 251 U.S. 121, 40 Sup.Ct. 65, 64 L.Ed. . . . (opinion filed December 8, 1919), the effect the amendments of October 6, 1917 (chapter 97, 40 Stat. 395 (Comp. St. ......
  • Proctor v. Dillon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1920
    ... ... not, if upon the high seas or navigable waters, is of ... admiralty cognizance." Peters v. Veasey, 251 ... U.S. 121 ...        3. It is provided ... in the Constitution of the United States by art ...        3, ... ...
  • In re O'Hara
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1924
    ...S. 372, 38 Sup. Ct. 501, 62 L. Ed. 1171;Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U. S. 308, 39 Sup. Ct. 112, 63 L. Ed. 261;Peters v. Veasey, 251 U. S. 121, 40 Sup. Ct. 65, 64 L. Ed. 180;Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149, 40 Sup. Ct. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834, 11 A. L. R. 1145. See, also, othe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 7
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Zalma on Property and Casualty Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...therefore governed by the general admiralty law and not by the law of Texas. S. Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917); Peters v. Veasey, 251 U.S. 121, (1919); Union Fish Co. v. Erickson, 248 U.S. 308 (1919). The laws of Texas have no application to the case. There is considerable conflict......

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