Erickson

Union Fish Co. v. Erickson

Good Law
148 C.C.A. 647·235 F. 385·1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2195
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 14, 1916No. 2680California694 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The appellant, as shown by the record, is a California corporation having its principal place of business at the city of San Francisco, engaged in fishing, and having a salting station at Pirate Cove, Alaska, and owning at the times in question a certain American vessel called the Martha. The ground of the libel, which was filed in the court below by the appellee, is as follows:

[1] Certain of the points relied upon by the appellant are based upon its contention that a part of the contract is maritime in character and a part nonmaritime. We see no merit in the contention. It is conceded, as a matter of course, that the employment of the appellee by the appellant as master of the schooner was a maritime contract; but it is said that, because by the terms of the contract the libelant was also to help the company’s agent at Pirate Cove in certain work on shore, there was no jurisdiction in admiralty.

In Alaska Packers’ Ass’n v. Domenico, 117 Fed. 99 , 54 C. C. A. 485 , this court affirmed the jurisdiction in admiralty of a contract made by men who acted as seamen to and from salmon fishing grounds in Alaska, to work as fishermen during the season, and assist in canning fish on…

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.