TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Gladestry

The Gladestry, 128 F. 591 (2d Cir. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 23, 1904
Docket
No. 167
Judges
Coxe, Eacombe, Townsend
Citations
128 F. 59163 C.C.A. 1981904 U.S. App. LEXIS 3944
Headnotes
1. Federal Courts — Appear—Findings oe Triar Judge — Concrusiveness. Where an action was tided before the District Judge, who saw all the witnesses, Ms findings-of fact will be followed on appeal. 2. Master axd Servant — Servants oi? Separate Masters in Same Work— Ferrotv Servants. A firm of stevedores contracted to discharge and load a vessel, being required to furnish all labor and appliances, except that the ship was to furnish winches and winelunon. Plaintiff, a servant of the stevedores, was injured by the negligence of the winclunan in failing to obey an order to reverse (he winch, field, that the winclunan, not being under the control of the stevedores, was not plaintiff's’fellow servant, so as to preclude plaintiff from recovering for his negligence.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. This cause comes here upon appeal from a decree of the District Court, Eastern District of New York, in favor of libelant for damages from personal injuries. 124 Fed. 112. The libelant was engaged as a stevedore, working in the employ of the firm of Wilson & Irvine, in discharging a cargo of logs from hatch No. 4 of the steamship G-ladestry. The winch which was used in connection with the work was furnished by the ship and run by one of her •crew. It was charged that the winclunan was negligent in that, when the gangwayman sang, out to him to “come back” (i. e., to reverse the winch), he went ahead with it, whereby the libelant’s finger was crushed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Eacombe

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

EACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The libelant, the gangwayman, and a fellow workman all testified to the winchman’s failure to obey the order given. The latter testifies that he conformed to whatever order he received. The cause was tried before the District Judge, who saw all the witnesses, and his findings of fact will be followed here.

It is contended that the winchman was a fellow servant .with the libelant. There was a similar contention in The S. S. Slingsby, 120 Fed. 748 , 57 C. C. A. 52 , where the point was quite fully discussed, and the conclusion reached that upon the facts of that case the winch-man did not become pro hac vice the servant of the firm of stevedores. The important piece of evidence in that case, as will be seen from the opinion, was the contract under which the work was being done. By its terms the stevedores agreed to “discharge and load/’ and the owners of the steamship agreed to “furnish winches and drivers [i. e., wiuchmen].” The contract in the case at bar is to the same effect; *592 its language is, “the ship to furnish steam winchmen, falls and slings.” There has been an effort to differentiate the case at bar by the testimony of one of the firm of stevedores as to what he understood he had a right to do under this contract, and as to what he had been allowed to do under similar contracts with other parties, but it is unimportant. Under-the contract the ship retained the power to select and remove winchmen, and the case cannot be distinguished from that of The Slingsby.

The decree is affirmed, with interest and costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 21905: 11907: 11909: 11911: 11914: 11921: 119042026peak 1904 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stevenson v. The Steamship Boveric3 Alaska 457 (D. Alaska 1907)
  2. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rust120 S.W. 249 (Tex. App. 1909)
  3. The Howell273 F. 513 (2d Cir. 1921)
  4. The City of San Antonio135 F. 879 (E.D. Va. 1905)
  5. Westover v. Hoover129 N.W. 285 (Neb. 1911)
  6. The Elton131 F. 562 (E.D. Pa. 1904)

Most recent

  1. The Howell273 F. 513 (2d Cir. 1921)
  2. Coyne v. Coastwise Dredging Co.89 A. 1060 (R.I. 1914)
  3. Westover v. Hoover129 N.W. 285 (Neb. 1911)
  4. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rust120 S.W. 249 (Tex. App. 1909)
  5. Stevenson v. The Steamship Boveric3 Alaska 457 (D. Alaska 1907)
  6. The City of San Antonio135 F. 879 (E.D. Va. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
The Slingsby, 120 F. 748 (2d Cir. 1903) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list