Vujic v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 8863. |
| Citation | 220 F. 390 |
| Parties | VUJIC et al. v. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Reed Eichelberger & Nord, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
Hine Kennedy & Manchester, of Youngstown, Ohio, for defendant.
Dusan Vujic, a citizen of Austria-Hungary, was killed while in the employ of the defendant, leaving Nevena, his wife, and Victomir, his infant son, his next of kin, who remain in the old country. The decedent lost his life under circumstances which entitle the next of kin to the benefit of the provisions of the Workmen's Insurance Act of Ohio; the defendant having paid to the Industrial Commission of the state of Ohio the insurance premium in that behalf as provided by law.
Suit was brought by Ernest Ludwig, consul for Austria-Hungary, as the official representative and next friend of the beneficiaries. By answer it is admitted that the beneficiaries are entitled to receive compensation under the law of the state and that that amounts to the sum of $2,984.78. But the question is raised whether the consul is qualified to receive the payment of this sum by way of discharge of the obligation, without receiving from the beneficiaries a proper special authorization therefor.
The extent of the right of consuls in this country to intervene respecting the estates of deceased citizens of their respective countries, and to take part in the administration thereof, has been definitely established by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 Sup.Ct. 207, 56 L.Ed. 453, and it is unnecessary to consider other decisions which are collated and commented upon in that. The Attorney General of Ohio has rendered an opinion to the Industrial Commission adverse to the right of this particular consul, Mr. Ludwig, to acquit the commission in circumstances similar to those at bar, without special authorization from the beneficiaries residing abroad, and in that opinion, so far as it goes, and upon the facts on which it is based, we are inclined to concur.
The Ohio law is so drawn as to require for safety the distributive shares of beneficiaries to be paid directly to the beneficiaries, or to such unquestionable representatives of them, that there will be the least opportunity for a diversion of the compensation from the specific application designed by the statute. It is obvious, as suggested in the Attorney General's opinion, that the analogy between the question of taking care of the administration of a deceased national's estate by the consul of his country and the right of the consul to receive distribution of an estate is not very close. The Attorney General and this court join in recognizing, however, the convenience and the certainty of distribution through officers of unquestioned integrity of the compensation to beneficiaries which would follow if existing circumstances warranted the claim of the consul.
Examining all the cases and the discussions therein contained (for citation of which we refer to the opinion in Rocca v Thompson, supra, except that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dupree v. U.S.
...by specific treaties or statutes. E. g., Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 32 S.Ct. 207, 56 L.Ed. 453 (1912); Vujic v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 220 F. 390 (N.D.Ohio 1914); Ljubich v. Western Cooperage Company, 93 Or. 633, 184 P. 551 (1919). When not so buttressed it has been limited to t......
-
American Car & Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
...ex officio attorney in fact for any of his nonresident nationals having no other representative in this country. In Vujic v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (D. C.) 220 F. 390, it was held that a foreign consul had authority, by virtue of his office, to bring suit in the name of a widow who was......
-
Klekunas' Estate, In re
...law, but the usual powers may be increased by treaty stipulations or by the laws of their own homelands. Vujic v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., D.C., 220 F. 390; 16 Am.Jur. 965, Diplomats and Consular Officers, sec. 13. However, a consul is not, in the absence of some such additional grant o......
-
Buxhoeveden v Estonian State Bank
...C. C., 154 F. 911; Hunko v. Buffalo Crushed Stone Co., 203 App. Div. 284, 196 N.Y.S. 569; Vujic v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., D.C., 220 F. 390; All Union Chartering Co. (Sovfracht) v. The KotkasUNK, D.C., 37 F. Supp. 835; Ljubich v. Western Cooperage Co., 93 Or. 633, 184 P. 551; In re Her......