*1 by means altogether taxes or to avoid them making permits, the mere which the law it from gift complete by freeing more accrue would estate taxes that otherwise be con- upon death will not the donor’s testamentary equivalent strued disposition proof absence relinquishor that death considered near at hand. us: (1) Appellant have would Spalding’s motive presume To Mr. solely or relinquishment
making the avoiding dominantly purpose of accepted first (2) Having taxes. estate pre presumption, would have us relinquishment awas testa sume that the Then, ac disposition. (3) mentary he would cepting presumptions (1) (2), relinquish lastly presume that us contemplation of death. ment was only by pyramiding of these is conclusion presumptions several be reached. seeks can
which the Collector Pyramiding presumptions is holding this Court missible Nicholas, Ins. in Standard Accident Co. v. affirmed. LORENTZEN, Director of
GRASSO Shipping, etc.
No. 266. Appeals, Circuit. Second Court
Circuit
April Rassner, City, of New York for Jacob
libelant-appellant. Griffin, Deming Haight, &' Gardner, of City (Edgar York R. Kraetzer and O’Neill, City, both of New Ward J. respondent-appellee. counsel), for FRANK, Before Judges. *2 accident, sign- May report Judge. 29 a the of by by employer, ed his the was forwarded the appeal an This is of from a decree insurance company Deputy Commis^ to the of District Court for the District Southern Employees' sioner of the United States li- dismissing New York on the merits a York, in New Commission personal brought bel for against advising day begun had respondent Shipping the as Director of payments compensation make of without Curator Royal Norwegian Govern- awaiting an award Act, ment. such award was ever Thereafter made. stipulated From the facts and as found payments were continued at the rate of by appears the libellant the per week until a of $20 total $354.29 1942, 15, a longshoreman May who on paid by the company. insurance The years by employed old North- latter than Deputy advised Commis- the ern Dock Company, Inc., being engaged on stopped payments sioner that it had because day stow, helping in his behalf on of required the libellant was to establish the employer who contract disability. continuance On Novem- service, form that cargo a of crates report ber 25 he was examined and a army taining on tanks the steam- board this subsequently examination was for- ship Torvanger, which was berthed at State warded to the commission. All this time Brooklyn. Pier in respondent, oper- The negotiations the in its behalf carried were ating Shipping as a Norwegian and Trade by a claims examiner in office of the Mission, owned and controlled the vessel. Deputy the Commissioner. employer The libellant’s insured with On December 4 a claims examiner wrote Travelers compli- Insurance Company in the libellant and request the insurer to a ance with provision the insurance the conference on December but on the and Harbor Workers’ fifteenth the proctor libellant’s wrote the Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. 901 et § commission advising it the libellant seq. When the libellant was hurt had decided to sue a third party and so standing upon one the crates stow- would not attend the conference. On De- ed in the hold under hatch the No. 2 on cember 17 the libellant notified the commis- ’tween deck of the Torvanger. long- The sion of his election to sue party, a third shoremen were using a made of this suit followed. one-inch wire long, six feet which respondent accept pleaded The looped the gusset around plate a bracing compensation by the libellant ance as a ran at an angle from the side of the ship defense to the action under the under frame of A deck. cable from a winch upper on the pass- deck Act, supra, (b), ed 33 U.S.C.A. § blocks, snatch including one acceptance assign was an that such strap, that was held and with it the any employer of ac ment to his cause into drawing crates longshoremen respondent. against he had tion strap was bent The in the hold. overruled, and Be rightly defense was so. plate, which was % in fore the statute amended top. strap had The at the June inch wide an enough compensation acceptance of longshoremen and been found there operate assign 933(b) to as an under § inspection and them was used employee’s employer ment knowledge and consent of the against party, third of action cause ship. no election under thereafter there could be adequate, though dis- found on judge 933(a) than receive rather to sue § compensation. it was the established puted, evidence that Dimon Sciortino v. Steam among longshoremen custom Corporation, ship affirm bring equip- their aboard own F.2d “Northern Dock Com- ment phrase “acceptance amendment of com with un- accordance the custom pany in pensation” 933(b) was modified § straps for its own dertook to compensation an in a “under award words S. Torvan- S. employees deputy order filed commissioner.” ger.” a result of amendment must As there injured severely Deputy be some official action The libellant now establishing stowing the crates an Commissioner award of snatch block which had held in order to make such ac ceptance employee’s back. struck him on fact made following findings of party. third against action cause of informal, by are substantial the trial court based on may be Although award evidence: Steamship Cor Toomey v. Waterman see must 718, it poration, 2 Straps used the one as was Deputy Com amount an award question quite break, and it likely are *3 Stevedoring v. Weeks Sessa missioner. was examine the established custom to language Co., D.C., F.Supp. 50. The 56 they were in them from time to time while history amend legislative and the use. that intend 1938 ment of show it was “12. It was the established custom only to make effective practice Company of Northern ex- Dock to accepted in ac inspect amine and strap assigning before Re cordance with such See award. it for use. port Judiciary 1945 No. Committee Representatives, of the House of 75th Con adequate inspection “13. No strap of the gress, Session, 3rd dated March longshore- broke was made before the “Amending entitled put use, adequate men it into ex- amination was made them while it was Line, Act.” also Iaria See v. Silver in use. 42; 56 F.Supp. Cupo Steamship v. Isthmian accident because the occurred Co., D.C., F.Supp. 56 45. put longshoremen use, into use continued in However, in the we find no error adequate inspection, strap complaint dismissing the bill of judgment that broke.” ship’s will treat as the We merits. straps were these shown strap which property the the stevedores they heavy often subject wear and that to broke, court and used until it found strap was particular This use. it, though appear below treated it does not comparatively edge bent strap may it got where was and it how the plate, days two during narrow there inadvertently been left some withstanding it broke had before stevedore, ship’s evi contracting other put upon it it was used in strains no it had being dence the effect that or moving into fifteen sixteen be, may straps own. However that weighing seven from four to crates each appellee’s responsibility condi the wire Yet some strands of tons. ' strap certainly tion of no more strap which the made were out it extensive than would have been found, when examined one-half of it was agreed straps had been and this accident, rusted after to be actually argu Assuming, one it endo, furnished. brittle and weak for a distance of ship a strap, it was such broken end. inches from six about owner bound to reasonable exercise the trial it was for evidence care to make sure that when furnished prov- appellant had whether the determine inwas safe condition for use to which initially safe and strap not ed that put the stevedores. Beadle it was be light in the Its determination use. fit for 712, 80 Spencer, 298 56 S.Ct. U.S. v. permissible inferences conflicting Co., 1082; Shepard Luca L.Ed. De v. S.S. fail- shows a now, and the record trolling rely latter could his in- prove plaintiff to ure suitable, being appearance its its not negli- appellee’s caused juries were contrary, inspection showing the gence. See, Faunt for hidden defects before use. Judgment affirmed. Line, Cir., leroy Argonaut v. S.S. 50; Son, v. T. Liverani Clark & John 178, 131 N.Y. N.E. 881. Judge (concurring). proved unless this in the of affirmance I concur began be defective when the the libellant failed to stevedores to on the it, shipowner caused prove not liable for in juries negligence. ade- breaking. caused its respondent’s It was case, duty inspect dispose necessary quate is unnec- and if repair sufficiency replace the essary consider the the steve de- Bryant Vestland, began using dores it. based fense 1078; Act and Navigazione Alta Workers’ I Vale, Cir., opinion subject Italia v. express no F.