THE PRAHOVA
| Decision Date | 15 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 1386-Y.,1386-Y. |
| Citation | 38 F. Supp. 418 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | THE PRAHOVA. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Herbert R. Lande, of San Pedro, Cal., for libelant.
McCutcheon, Olney, Mannon & Greene, and Chaplin E. Collins, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for claimant and respondent.
By his libel in rem, George Angelescu, a seaman, acting as third officer on the Roumanian ship "Prahova", which has since changed its registration to the Republic of Panama, and has been renamed the "Tropicus", seeks his discharge from the service of the vessel and the sum of $1,176, alleged to be due him. More details as to the nature of the claim appear in the opinion filed on the motion to dismiss by the Honorable James Alger Fee, sitting in our District, on April 3, 1941. 38 F.Supp. 227.
The claimant, Dolphin Company, Inc., has filed an answer which, in addition to general denials, pleads several special defenses. The claimant challenges the jurisdiction of the court. It insists that by reason of the alienage of the libelant, and the fact that his contract, made in the Roumanian language, with Roumanian owners, must be construed according to Roumanian law, this court is without jurisdiction. This contention is answered fully in Judge Fee's opinion.
We add that, while we have discretion in entertaining jurisdiction of controversies between foreign seamen and their ships, in our ports (see Charter Shipping Co., Ltd., v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, Ltd., 1930, 281 U.S. 515, 50 S.Ct. 400, 74 L. Ed. 1008; Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Co., 1932, 285 U.S. 413, 52 S.Ct. 413, 76 L.Ed. 837; Heredia v. Davies, 4 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 500; The Sonderborg, 4 Cir., 1931, 47 F.2d 723; The Taigen Maru, 9 Cir., 1934, 73 F.2d 922; The Leonidas, D.C.Md., 1940, 32 F.Supp. 738), the facts in the case, to be alluded to further on in the opinion, confirm Judge Fee's ruling and compel us to exercise discretion in favor of jurisdiction. See 46 U.S.C.A., Sec. 597; Dustin v. Murray, 1871, 8 Fed.Cas. 144, No. 4,201; The Helen Fairlamb, D.C.Pa., 1918, 251 F. 412; Strathearn S. S. Co. v. John Dillon, 1919, 252 U.S. 348, 40 S.Ct. 350, 64 L.Ed. 607; The Estrella, 3 Cir., 1938, 102 F.2d 736.
Other defenses urged are that the libelant breached his contract by failure to perform faithfully his work, and that he should be denied recovery because of his failure to comply with the conditions of discharge and repatriation outlined by the Royal Roumanian Legation of the United States.
In dealing with a ship of foreign registry, it is difficult, at times, because of the barrier of language, to untangle the facts behind disagreements between the Captain of a ship and the members of his crew. See the observations of Judge Chesnut in The Austvard, D.C.Md., 1940, 34 F.Supp. 431, 435. Fortunately, the Captain and the libelant speak English, although the libelant's knowledge is rather limited. The correspondence relating to the controversy is written mostly in Roumanian, partly in French. A knowledge of these languages has made it easier for me to interpret it, and the Roumanian law, which governs. See Rainey v. New York & P. S. S. Co., 9 Cir., 1914, 216 F. 449; The Baymead, 9 Cir., 1937, 88 F.2d 144; Petter Lassen, D.C.Cal., 1939, 29 F.Supp. 938.
As the documents are pieced together, it is apparent that the libelant and his Captain had difficulties during the major part of their relationship, which began at Genoa, Italy, on February 8, 1940, when a contract of employment was entered into between the libelant and Captain Alexander Tiufiaeff, captain of the ship. The contract is written in the Roumanian language. It embodies, as its conditions, sections of the Roumanian Maritime Code and is witnessed by the Roumanian General Consul at Genoa, Italy.
Libelant's difficulties, amply corroborated by testimony in the record, are told graphically in the following translated excerpts from the Log of the "Prahova", kept by the Captain:
At one stage of the voyage, and while the ship was docked at Buenos Aires, the Director of the Roumanian Commercial Marine, acting under the authority of law, wirelessed from Bucharest to the Captain of the ship to detach from the ship and repatriate the libelant, along with four others, for trial before the Maritime Tribunal for acts of indiscipline and instigation to mutiny. The order was later countermanded. Repeatedly, the libelant sought his discharge from the ship. His last attempt was made on December 4, 1940, while the ship lay at anchor at San Pedro, California. On December 6, 1940, the Captain informed the libelant that under Roumanian law, he was without power to discharge him without the authorization of the Roumanian Ministry of Marine and that he was requesting such authority. The demands for salaries, bonus, and the cost of repatriation contained in the letter, the Captain also transmitted to the Roumanian Legation at Washington, D. C., for submission to the proper authorities in Roumania.
There was offered in evidence, as Claimant's Exhibit F, a circular, dated May 25, 1940, by the Roumanian Ministry of Marine, stating that, under the law of April 13, 1940, Roumanian members of the crew on ships carrying the Roumanian flag could not, henceforth, be detached from the service without the authorization of the Ministry of Marine. In June, 1940, in a letter written in French from Milan, a copy of this order was transmitted to the Captain of the "Prahova".
On December 15, 1940, the libelant wrote to the Captain a long letter in English, a portion of which only is material. While written in rather poor English, with a mixture of French, it so clearly expresses the desires of the libelant in the matter and so finally and effectively disposes of any claim he might have to demand that the cost of repatriation be paid to him instead of repatriation, that portions of it are reproduced here.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ozanic v. United States
... ... Though the "Petar" was a Yugoslavian ship sunk on the high seas, the district court would have had jurisdiction of tort suits by members of her crews against her owners. The Prahova, D.C.S.D.Cal., 38 F.Supp. 418. Cf. The Belgenland, 114 U.S. 355, 5 S.Ct. 860, 29 L.Ed. 152. But whatever the tort liability 165 F.2d 744 of a foreign owner of a foreign ship may be to its crew depends upon the law of the country whose flag the ship flies. Radovcic v. The Princ Pavle, D.C.S.D.N ... ...
- In re Carl, 1926.
-
Giatilis v. The Darnie
... ... 2 The Prahova, D.C.S.D.Cal., 38 F.Supp. 418, upon which libelant relies, was based upon different facts and principles. The libelant in that case remained aboard a Roumanian vessel after he had been suspended but not discharged by the master; he was held entitled to his wages until he was properly discharged ... ...
-
Kontos v. THE SS SOPHIE C., 269
... ... But cf. Giatilis v. The Darnie, D.C.D.Md.1959, 171 F.Supp. 751, 754 ... We do not, of course, consider the possibility of a federal district judge being fluent in Greek, although one never can tell. See The Prahova ... ...