Pillsbury

United Fruit Co. v. Pillsbury

Good Law
55 F.2d 369·1932 A.M.C. 989·1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 982
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 1932No. 3013 LCalifornia1,034 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Louderback, J.

This case involves an interpretation of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act March 4, 1927, c. 569, § 22, 44 Stat. 1437 , 33 USCA § 922. The-facts aro as follows: One Bert King was in the employ of the United Fruit Company on September 2,1930, at San Francisco Harbor in the Thirteenth Compensation District, and while performing stevedoring services for said employer on board the steamship San Mateo, then afloat upon navigable waters of the United States, sustained accidental injury arising out of and in the course of said employment, which injury caused disability.

Said Bert King filed a claim for compensation against complainants herein before Warren H. Pillsbury, Deputy Commissioner of the Thirteenth Compensation District; and after proceedings regularly and duly had before said Warren II. Pillsbury, a compensation order and award of compensation was on December 16, 1936, rog *370 ularly and duly entered and made, in which, it was found and awarded that the disability from said injury terminated as of November 17, 1930, and compensation on account of said disability was terminated as of said November 17, 1930, and that the claimant Bert King had suffered from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.