The J.F. Card
| Citation | 43 F. 92 |
| Parties | THE J. F. CARD. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1890 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Syllabus by the Court
The obligation of a vessel navigating the lakes to support and cure seamen taken sick or receiving injuries in the service of the ship does not extend beyond the termination of the seaman's contract, and his return to his home or to a marine hospital.
Stewart O. Van der Marck, for libelant.
H. H Swan, for respondent.
The most important question of fact in this case relates to the contract of hiring. Upon the one hand, libelant swears that he was hired at Detroit on the 23d day of August 'until the vessel laid up,' or 'for the balance of the season,' and that the master 'understood it so at the time. ' The wages were to be $60 per month. Upon the other hand, the master swears he hired him for 'just as long as we agreed. ' 'I hired him for the trip to go from here to Toledo' at $60 per month. He adds that he usually hires the men for as long as they can agree. About four days after he went on board, and before the vessel started on her voyage, the master instructed the libelant who was the mate, to procure the signatures of the sailors to shipping articles for the voyage from Detroit to Toledo thence to Gladstone, thence to Escanaba to load ore; and thence to Erie, the port of destination. These articles were lost, but it was admitted that they would show that libelant's name was signed about the third, instead of being the first, as they naturally would be, he being the mate. Owing to some dispute, either about the rate of wages or the length of the trip, the sailors declined to sign the articles until libelant had signed them; whereupon, in order to induce them to sign the articles, libelant put his own name down the third on the list.
Without undertaking to determine whether the articles were binding upon him when the agreement, as sworn to both by him and by the master, was a different one, it is clear that there is no preponderance of evidence in favor of the libelant that his shipment was for the season. My own impression is from the whole testimony that the agreement was indefinite as to time; that there was a mutual understanding that either party might declare the contract at an end if he chose to do so; but, as both parties are agreed that the rate of wages was to be $60 per month, I think that justice will be done by following the rule laid down by Judge LONGYEAR in the case of The John Martin, 2 Abb. (U.S.) 172, and treating this as an engagement for, at least, one month, with the option on either side of terminating the engagement at the end of the month.
What then, were the legal obligations of the schooner to the libelant with respect to his injuries? It is too well settled to require a citation of authorities that a seaman taken sick or receiving injuries in the service of the ship is entitled to be treated at the expense of the ship, unless such injuries are received in consequence of his own gross carelessness. This is not only the law of England and America, but apparently of every civilized nation possessing a maritime code. The real question in this case is, how long does this obligation remain in force? Does it continue indefinitely, until the seaman is cured, or does it cease upon the completion of the voyage, or of his contract of hiring? If we are to accept the authority of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co of New Jersey Waterman Corporation v. Jones
... ... Peterson v. The Chandos, D.C., 4 F. 645; see also The J. F. Card, D.C., 43 F. 92; The Ben Flint, D.C., 3 Fed. Cas. page 183, No. 1,299, 1 Abb.U.S. 126. Conceptions of contributory negligence, the fellow-servant ... ...
-
Vitco v. Joncich
... ... Lehigh Valley R. Co., 2 Cir., 1932, 60 F.2d 893, 895; cf. The J. F. Card, D.C.E.D.Mich.1890, 43 F. 92, and neither obligation is discharged until the earliest time when it is reasonably and in good faith determined by ... ...
-
Calmar Corporation v. Taylor
... ... Cf. Reed v. Canfield, C.C., Fed.Cas.No.11641, with the comments of Judge, later Justice, Brown in The J. F. Card, D.C., 43 F. 92, and see those of Judge Hough in The Bouker No. 2, supra, 2 Cir., 241 F. 831, at page 834. But we find no support in the policies ... ...
-
Cox v. Dravo Corp.
... ... " The J. F. Card, 43 F. 92, 94 (D.C.E.D.Mich.1890) ... Harden v. Gordon and Reed v. Canfield were appeals to the old circuit courts from district ... ...