Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 164
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Citation | 244 F.2d 409 |
Docket Number | No. 164,Docket 24205.,164 |
Parties | Francisco ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL OPERATING CO., Compania Trasatlantica, also known as Spanish Line, Garcia & Diaz, Inc., and Quin Lumber Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Decision Date | 30 April 1957 |
Charles A. Ellis, New York City (Narciso Puente, Jr., and Silas B. Axtell, New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
John Nielsen, New York City (John P. Smith, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee International Terminal Operating Co.
John L. Quinlan, New York City (Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, and John B. Shields, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees Compania Trasatlantica, also known as Spanish Line, and Garcia & Diaz, Inc.
Sidney A. Schwartz, of Alexander, Ash & Schwartz, New York City (William J. Kenney, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Quin Lumber Co., Inc.
Before HINCKS, LUMBARD and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
We affirm on Judge Sugarman's workmanlike opinion below which contains a full statement of the facts.
We do not, however, overlook the appellant's invocation of Article VI1 of the treaty of 1902 between the United States and Spain, 33 Stat. 2105, in support of his contention, made apparently for the first time on the appeal, that the court below had jurisdiction under the Jones Act. 46 U.S.C.A. § 688. We find nothing in the text of that Article which confers upon the appellant, a Spanish subject, the substantive rights created by the Jones Act. The appellant also argues that the abrogation of Article XXIII2 of that treaty somehow demonstrates the presence of jurisdiction below. But as to this, appellant's counsel, with commendable candor, subsequent to argument provided us with a letter from a legal adviser in the State Department which states that Article XXIII of the 1902 treaty has been abrogated only in so far as its provisions are in conflict with the Seaman's Act of March 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1164.3 Neither in Article XXIII nor in its abrogation do we find support for the appellant's position on the jurisdictional questions involved.
Affirmed.
1 VI.
2 XXIII.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co
...the Spanish law may be enforced through the Spanish consul in New York. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, 244 F.2d 409. We granted certiorari, 355 U.S. 807, 78 S.Ct. 55, 2 L.Ed.2d 27, because of the conflict among Courts of Appeals as to the proper construction o......
-
Bartholomew v. Universe Tankships, Inc., 22
...... a construction in consonance with international maritime law. This meant that not every contact, ...E.g., Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 1931, 282 U.S. 234, 51 S.Ct. 111, 75 L.Ed. 312; ... formerly regarded as involving only operating negligence, see Gilmore & Black, The Law of ...530. In Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., ......
-
Bartholomew v Universe Tankships Inc.
...(1955), p. 533]. In Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 142 F.Supp. 570, affirmed Per Curiam, 2 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 409, this issue was one of the numerous points in contention. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari, 355 U.S. 807, 78 S.Ct. 55, 2 L.Ed.2d 27 ......
-
Markakis v. Liberian S/S The Mparmpa Christos
...Endborg, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1957, 155 F.Supp. 387; The Fletero v. Arias, 4 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 267, 270-271; Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 2 Cir., 1957, 244 F.2d 409, affirming D.C., 142 F.Supp. 570; Catherall v. Cunard S. S. Co., D.C. S.D.N.Y. 1951, 101 F.Supp. 230; Jonassen v......