Gold

Gold v. Matson Nav. Co.

Good Law
5 F. Supp. 971·1933 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1906
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 1933No. 21606California1,032 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kerrigan, J.

This is an action against the respondent for the wages of a seaman. The action is based on section 596 of 46 USCA which provides for double pay on refusal of demand for earned wages without sufficient cause. The libelant was employed as an able seaman on the respondent’s vessel the Lurline for the voyage from Hongkong to San Francisco too late to sign the shipping articles before the United States consul. The consul at Hongkong authorized the signing of the shipping articles on board the ship and this was agreed to by both the captain of the Lurline and the libelant. After the vessel was under way, libelant refused to sign saying that there was dissension among members of the crew and that the food was bad. Arriving at Shanghai he demanded three days pay ($4.75), and said he was going to leave the ship there. He was referred to the American consul. Subsequently, he and the captain accompanied by ;the purser met at the office of the consul. There the captain took the position that he was governed by the shipping articles and since libelant had not signed them, he would not be warranted in paying him. The libelant offered to sign the articles if the captain would promise to pay him…

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.