The Burchard
| Decision Date | 13 June 1890 |
| Citation | 42 F. 608 |
| Parties | THE BURCHARD. [1] v. THE BURCHARD. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
W. D. McKinstry, for libelants.
Thos. H. Smith, for claimant.
Under the allegations of the libel in this case, it appeared that libelants were American seamen, and had been discharged by the master at this port; and that, therefore, their relations to the vessel as a part of its crew had been severed. If this was true, I was inclined to the opinion that the court had jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the question of wages. The testimony, however, fails to show that they were discharged by the master. On the contrary, it shows that libelants claimed their discharge at this port on the ground that, by the terms of their contract, they were entitled to their discharge. The master denied their claim, whereupon a dispute arose between them as to what was the contract. The master told them to go ashore if they wished, and go to see the consul. For this court to undertake to settle the dispute between the parties, and to determine the question of libelants' right to their discharge under the contract, and hence of their right to wages, would require a consideration and construction of the contract by the court, which, under the treaty, the court has not the jurisdiction to do. And while I may be of opinion, as I construe the shipping articles produced, that under them libelants are entitled to be discharged at this port, still the court has, as I have said, no jurisdiction so to adjudicate, but must remit the matter to the consul. The Elwine Kreplin, 9 Blatchf. 439. It is therefore ordered that the libel be dismissed.
---------
Notes:
[1] Reported by Peter J. Hamilton, Esq., of the Mobile bar.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alcoa S. S. Co., Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent
...have been upheld. The Albergen, 223 F. 443 (S.D.Ga.1915), and cases cited at 444-45; The Welhaven, 55 F. 80 (S.D.Ala.1892); The Burchard, 42 F. 608 (S.D.Ala.1890).13 As a practical matter, the cases that would give rise to such a situation are rare. Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombian......
-
The Ester
...to receive faithful observation, and the court cannot take jurisdiction. The Elwin Kreplin, 9 Blatchf. 438, Fed. Cas. No. 4,426; The Burchard (D.C.) 42 F. 608; Marie (D.C.) 49 F. 286; The Welhaven (D.C.) 55 F. 80; The Bound Brook (D.C.) 146 F. 160; Tellefsen v. Fee, 168 Mass. 188, 46 N.E. 5......
-
Telefsen v. Fee
...177; The Elwine Kreplin, 9 Blatchf. 438, Fed.Cas. No. 4,426, where the question is considered at length; The Salomoni, 29 F. 534; The Burchard, 42 F. 608; The Marie, 49 F. 286; The 55 F. 80. In The Amalia, 3 F. 652, jurisdiction was entertained by Judge Fox of the United States district cou......
-
THE TAIGEN MARU
...had no jurisdiction of it. "That ruling was followed by Judge Deady in the case of The Marie (D. C.) 49 F. 286, in the case of The Burchard (D. C.) 42 F. 608, in The Welhaven (D. C.) 55 F. 80, and in other cases there "Our conclusion is that the court below had no jurisdiction over the ques......