TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Cora F. Cressy

The Cora F. Cressy, 131 F. 144 (D. Mass. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, D. Massachusetts · Federal District Courts
Decided
June 20, 1904
Docket
No. 1,457
Judges
Lowell
Citations
131 F. 1441904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190
Syllabus
1. Seamen — Disobedience—Punishment—Imprisonment. That the master of a vessel failed to re) ¡lace a second mate who had been paid off at an intermediate port, as required by Rev. St. § 4516 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3071], was no excuse for the total refusal of members of the crew to work the vessel, and was therefore no defense to the master’s right to punish them for their disobedience.
Summary
In Admiralty.

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

Opinion of the Court — Lowell

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

LOWELL, District Judge.

This was a libel to recover (1) damages for false imprisonment, and (2) wages.

1. The seamen libelants refused to work, and were put in irons until they were ready to obey orders. The imprisonment was justified, unless the refusal to work was justified. The libelants’ counsel seeks to-justify the-seamen’s disobedience by the master’s alleged violation of Rev. St. § 4516, as amended by Act 1898, c. 28, § 1, 30 Stat. 755 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3071], in that the vessel put to sea without replacing a second mate who had been paid off at Norfolk, an intermediate port. But, even if section 4516 applies to domestic vessels, and extends to the replacing of both officers and seamen, and though it be assumed that the master of the Cressy could reasonably have obtained a second mate at Norfolk (all disputable propositions), yet the master’s violation of law does not excuse the crew’s total refusal to work the vessel, either at Norfolk or after leaving that port. Hence the libelants have failed to-prove any false imprisonment.

2. It follows that the master was justified in docking the crew’s wages during their confinement, but, as he failed to comply with the provisions of Rev. St., § 4-597 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3115], I am disposed to mark my disapproval of this irregularity by disallowing the deduction.

Decree for balance of wages, without costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1970: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Robert Roeder v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc.422 F.2d 971 (3d Cir. 1970)

Most recent

  1. Robert Roeder v. Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc.422 F.2d 971 (3d Cir. 1970)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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