THE YOUNGSTOWN, 269.

• Decision Date: 10 July 1939
• Docket Number: No. 269.,269.
• Parties: THE YOUNGSTOWN. MADDEN et al. v. LYKES BROS. RIPLEY S. S. CO., Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

28 F. Supp. 197

THE YOUNGSTOWN.

MADDEN et al. v. LYKES BROS. RIPLEY S. S. CO., Inc.

No. 269.

District Court, E. D. Louisiana.

July 10, 1939.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, La., for libelants.

Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll and Benjamin W. Yancey, all of New Orleans, La., for respondent.

BORAH, District Judge.

This is a libel by former members of the crew of the steamship Youngstown, seeking to recover the balance of earned wages which it is claimed was due them on December 17, 1936, when they left the vessel's service at Port Tampa.

The material facts are these. On October 16, 1936 the libelants signed the usual form of shipping articles before the United States Shipping Commissioner for the port of Houston, Texas, which articles provided in part as follows: "It Is Agreed between the Master and seamen, or mariners, of the S. S. Youngstown of Houston, Texas, of which Albin Johnson is at present Master, or whoever shall go for Master, now bound from the Port of Houston, Texas, to Havre, Dunkirk, Antwerp, & Rotterdam and such other ports and places in any part of the world as the Master may direct, and back to a final port of discharge in the United States, for a term of time not exceeding 12 calendar months."

On October 17, 1936 the vessel proceeded on her transatlantic voyage and after calling at foreign ports returned to the United States, arriving at Port Tampa, Florida, on December 17, 1936. When the vessel arrived at Tampa a seamen's strike was in progress and the libelants informed the chief officer that they could not go to work until they had more definite information about the strike. On the following day after delegates from the crew had twice conferred with the master and after the ship's agent and the Union delegate had been called in, in an effort to adjust the matter, libelants decided to go on strike and to quit the service of the vessel. However, before actually quitting the vessel they demanded and were paid one-half of their earned wages including overtime. Having left the ship solely on account of the strike, the master logged them as deserters and declared all of their unpaid wages forfeited. After several days delay a new crew was employed for the remainder of the voyage and the vessel proceeded to New Orleans, the port of final discharge where the voyage terminated on December 24, 1936.

In this libel the seamen are seeking to recover the unpaid balance of wages which have already been forfeited with the approval of the United States Shipping Commissioner at New Orleans. They also seek to recover two days' pay for each day delay in the payment of their respective wages. 46 U.S.C.A. § 596. The allegations of the libel show that this proceeding was instituted on the theory that libelants were not in fact deserters and that the shipping articles should be construed to mean that libelants were only obligated to work on board the vessel until such time as the vessel returned to an American port in the Gulf of Mexico or to a safe harbor in an American port. Testimony was taken on these issues and the case was set down for trial. When the case was argued for libelants, new issues were injected into the...