Kyriakos v. Goulandris

1.32 e work, Moore, but it the hands of it was left not be charged would with notic Plainly, the charged. part be surety not exposed should of the bottom alongside was loans, the only purpose protect the water, at low duty with the of warn parties it impute barges im- However, and would the it is fact. to be incident, that, probable intent testified, hold as remembered only bargee the so surety the generally and, meant make moreover, that, him, itself according to the Indeed, liable the is contract. actual berth where barge lay, the her bows just it what meant not Since it thirty to do. exposed were feet morе the outside liable, unnecessary not it is decide shoal. How far the existence the contractor liable whether the con- as placed impose shoal it would signee; or the as whether United States upon duty consignee to give any the warn wharfinger liable, would been if ing whatever to barges which moored parties could have been sued. Of where the fast, barge libellant’s was made us before none are libel- to the liable matter, is another about which dowe not

lant. express any opinion. libel reversed; against Decree libel will as not dismissed charterer dismissed, against be but respondents. cause be re- will manded for trial between libellant and upon the charterer the issue of the con- On for Rehearing. Petition signees negligence. PER CURIAM. petitions re The libellant for a hearing so original much our dis position appeal as her dismissed against charterer, which, libel she consignee any negligence of the argues, agrees; imputed. to be So far charterer indeed, and, just decided Transportation Inc. & O’Donnell Co. v. M. Inc., Tracy, 735. But J. KYRIAKOS GOULANDRIS et al. replies that not charterer did No. 340. prove consignee negligent in offering Appeals, that, since it— barge, berth Court Second Circuit. proved had how the loss Aug. 3, charterer — happened, exculpa evidence offered consignee, tion lost advantage arising original pre from the such; charterer, sumption against as carry proof on and did not the burden of finding judge issue. The made no as consignee’s negligence, question probably fully not out tried as been, sup as it had it then would have been posed re crucial. Now versal of against tug decree so, equitable it seems us made against the charterer the libel dismiss record; but remand cause on this trial, though between two for further these only. parties trial, Upоn that reasons just given, charterer free of will any presumption, libellant will have and the proof; furthermore the burden we do regard the issue as foreclosed that, record. say did present We indeed consignee using wharf month, we hesitate to should for a hold HAND, Judge, dissenting

L. personally render them is no liable. corporations evidence that were sham these captain ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‍fraudulent. It is that the true the Theomitor listed the Customs Service at Fernandina owned “Goulandris his Bros.” It from testimony probably that he meant Goulan- London, corporation dris Bros. Ltd. sued, copartnership. here the than rather no was sufficient estab- evidence to liability part lish partnership of or its individual members. The by claims asserted the libellant arose D.C., F.Supp. See also, injuries out of resulting from an of assault by George the libellant one The Bouritis. Freehill, Reid, Cunningham of New. & latter was hired in New York the Greek (Frederick Cunningham, York City H. Line, Newport News, trip made the to and respond- City, counsel), New York for joined ship at the same time as the libel- ents-appellants. ship lant. Before sailed, and Kottler, Arkin, of New York Lebovici & smoking others saw Bouritis what he said Arkin, City (Joseph Kottler Edward and hasheesh; was sang, he smoked while he counsel), City, York fоr both of New danced “Any and said: will talk me one to libelant-appellee. I king.” will kill him. Now I am the ship About six hours after the left New- HAND, N. Before L. AUGUSTUS port News, passer Bouritis struck coal FRANK, Judges. HAND Circuit and pail. head with a the explanation, When asked for repeated: “Anyone he will talk HAND, Judge. AUGUSTUS N. to I kill passer me will him.” The coal was articles New The captain taken aid, to the first and told City York for a March, captain that Bouritis struck him Newport England News and back from to The cap- cause.' boatswain then told the engaged to United States. with He tain that Bouritis was a “bad character” and several others offices Greek smoked hasheesh. Bouritis continued captain pursuant Line to orders from the attempted he quarrelsome; strike an- paid the Theomitor. The-Greek Line fireman, Haralambides, other one after expenses transportation Newport his altercation over manner which Hara- joined ship, News, he also and work, lambides did his prevented but was expenses medical incurred as a some of the the boatswain. After this incident Hara- gave assault which rise to this result of the complained lambides engineer the second action, Hellas. Hellas out of the funds of alongside “that he couldn’t work a man who ship respond and agent was the scrapping all the time”. Bouritis next Basil, Nicholas and Leonidas ents Goulan Almorantis, fireman, threatened when The dris that firm. Greek Line controlled boiler, coal fell out of the saying: “Be agent prin was liable as for an undisclosed you somebody, careful don’t burn you and if cipal. you.” I will are careful burn Al- When morantis answered general that was as agent manager and he careful be, slapped he could Bouritis Greek his Line testified Hellas was face. Al- complained ships, morantis first principal engineer, the Greek Line’s for all proper officer as such to receive looked to it and cleared all mon complaints, tell- ing happened. him ey what had Undoubtedly it. this sufficient He also told “every him that time liability to establish the Hellas he came on as the watch” Bouritis smoked agent controlling hasheesh general Theomitor and “out his mind.” claims if otherwise well arrived Fer- libellant’s founded. .After Basil, nandina, crew, several including as to Nicholas and Leonidas But landris, Gou boatswain, libellant and the went doing Bros., cap- business as Goulandris him, according was not sufficient evidence tain and asked there to hold libellant’s individually collectively. testimony: you' going them “What are either to‘do with they fellow, Bouritis, George conceded that owned the stock who makes Line, the Greek Hellas or of this would not trouble all time and who smokes hash- body, inflict- Ant- repeatedly stabbed him eesh, the consul and who hit groin “Leave now wounds the loin werp?” captain replied: extensive heart re- axilla and the going I to do.” side and will see what am left, gion on other less serious as well as Fer- days arrival at A few after place wounds. took The attack nandina, woman brought a colored Bouritis ship, according meters tes- from the ship. bunk aboard When one libellant, and timony of Almorantis him, said: Bouritis crew remonstrated with mile, about walk from the ten minutes Al- yours ?” “What When business is cap- according testimony of the remonstrated, said: morantis also Bouritis tain. you pimp” you, and be- “I don’t have ask Although him. gan striking slapping him- shown is evident that Bouritis had them, separate members of the crew tried to prior upon to the attack the libellant self escape, Bouritis Almorantis tried to and disposi- savage of such and uncontrolled brought floor, him bit him in down to the tion, easily provoked, be a dan- and so as to to hit back of neck and continued ship, ger tо men worked on same who The libellant was watchman on that him. apparent even with him. This had become night. He and watchman heard another before the incident of the woman colored crying: “Help me, killing someone he is provoked which Bouritis to ambush forward, They “Almor- me.” ran and saw cap- libellant. was evidence that .the in the on floor with Bou'ritis’ teeth antis fully tain of the Theomitor was informed neck, punching him back Almorantis’ and quarrelsome that Bouritis was a trouble- lamp face.” A and had fallen over maker, hasheesh, that smoked and that he put started a fire. libellant out the While he had assaulted than one man least more at separated fire the watchman Almor- other with once little or no reason. Several mem- and Bouritis. antis complained him bers the crew had captain delegation upon called aboard, had no officers but the There were Fernán dina ask he captain what intended to do libellant had orders from the not to nothing. with anyone the troublemaker. He did allow on board the without ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‍a pass. He therefore the colored took woman If Bouritis had dur discharged ashore, despite Bouritis’ threat: “Don’t days ing ship’s stay first three boat, off take that womаn will kill Fernandina, the incident rise to the giving you.” ship, say- Bouritis also then left the assault would never have occurred. Sea you pay “I to libellant: will make legal power men have rid no themselves this.” shipmates. dangerous power That rests captain When the was informed of the in- with officers of the offi vessel. cident, him, sent for he Bouritis and said to employ cers choose to a man continue they your with a wink: “Did take Missus who known or should be known them apparently off He nothing the boat?” did peril to be a source of to those who sail prior subsequent time assault him, might with when measures which rea upon chеck the libellant to Bouritis’ vicious sonably expected prevent in resulting tendencies, which he to have had jury taken, are not or cannot be a resulting information, adequate very toor terminate a member of the crew is one for employment ship. Bouritis’ with the person injured may which the recover under evening The next libellant went ashore to Act, 46 U.S.C.A. 688. Koehler § Jones buy soap some and other merchandise he Presque-Isle Transportation Co., Cir., voyage. would making need After 141 F.2d 490. purchases his met a number he of other The master denied knowledge members of the crew who hailed him from disрosition vicious of Bouritis and of the passed. a Greek coffee house he He said as expulsion incident of the of the woman had to them that he been told the chief from the ship, judge but the spite found in hurry back, pre- engineer to but he was of this “that the knew master or that he at upon cup drink vailed one coffee be- * * * least should have known all of them back to fore went to- a man Bouritis was of a vicious and violent gether. they Thereafter went out of the character and irrational.” ship. coffee house and set out Appellants contend, however, four blocks from the coffee Three hou'se Bouritis was hidden behind the libellant cannot the corner of a sue Act they gives remedy building; as turned the corner because to an alien he em ployed ship. on sprang a knife Both Hellas and the Greek foreign corporations Line are said: Section of the Seamen’s of 1915 Act so apparently was of Lon- Goulandris Ltd. “But the cannot limit title of don. may plain text, resi- meaning although Goulandrises Greeks were of its abroad; dent Polemis, registered so was be looked cases to to aid in construction in Theomitor, owner of the was not of doubt.” In that case а anything in signed We cannot had served. find who try, articles in coun- support Dis- record to the statement of the on foreign ship, sued one- to recover wages trict Court a resident half him at the Pen- due Act, United He was a Greek citizen. States. sacola. Section 4 of the Seamen’s seaman, country He had gave come to U.S.C.A. “seamen on § “stopped from right bring for he work” testified he vessels” the such an action. brought Although on which him to this expressly vessel Section 4 ex- did repairs. ship required seamen”, country “foreign because that tend argued it was period, unspecified He had been herе the title of the act limited the months, certainly less than three suit American seamen serving stay ships, His when Theomitor. the court held sea- injuries sus- since were country in this men were entitled to sue under Section sufficient,under all the circum- tained is not stances, scope Act is effective the Jones acquired a resi- to show that he purpose confined of the Seamen’s signed in the States when he dence on which would United by Act as indicated the title. If it were so give right a of action him limited, foreign seamen on vessels would Bergoty, Act. under the Gambera act, Jones right have no to under sue since 414, Cir., 2 319 132 deniеd certiorari speaks language of title “American 1030, 742, U.S. 63 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. We in seamen merchant marine Unit of the are thus called to determine whether Supreme ed States”. in But Court held signed alien who in an Amer- an ican seaman Co., 282 234, Uravic v. F. U.S. 51 S.Ct. Jarka port voyage beginning for a and end- 312, 75 111, L.Ed. that an American steve waters under in American can sue ship working foreign dore on a in Amer an Although Act. is doubtful the matter port Jones we believe that was entitled to ican sue under the act. can. Furthermore, the act itself its indicates that scope purpose than its ex broader as Rio, In The Pinar Plamals v. Del 277 U. title, prеssed 4 in the for Section of the Sea 151, 457, 827, S. 48 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed. where the provides Act 1915 men’s that the statu only question was that decided there was no tory right of to seamen demand half the by given lien maritime Act which Jones apply wages due them “shall to seamen Spanish injured seaman was entitled foreign in vessels while harbors port a British while on at the of Phila ”* * * well sea United States men on vessels as to delphia against in bring to a suit rcm Nor of the United States. vessel, court said that was it unneces this passage any does indicate Congres sary provisions consider whether the to sional intention extend right to and no appliсable. Section Act 33 were Jones other conferred the statute to obvious, recovery sought That was vessels, right seamen on since the personam. in rem and not in wages to as originally half created stat Act, 688, 46 U.S.C.A. is not § Jones expressly ute limited to seamen on seamen, in terms to restricted American but American vessels. The Seamen’s Act of gives right “any action to seaman who required explicit amendatory 1915therefore personal injury shall in suffer course of language right to extend this to seamen on employment.” It-is, however, contended ships, right given by but the of suit that “seaman” means American an limited, originally Act was not Jones sup- a seaman of an American vessel. In literally terms, general in perfectly may argued of this it contention be require express accordingly did not exten 1915, Seamen’s the title of the Act of 38 sion. 1164, to which Act Stat. Jones Congress When used the word “seamen” part: amendment, pro- reads in “An Act to employed Act it in the of gen- word Jones welfare of American mote the seamen in application, embracing eral men of na- marine of the merchant the United States.” who sail the seas. Had it tion wished to application Dillon, In Strathearn S. S. Co. v. limit statute to sea- 348, 350, 351, 354, residence, U.S. of American citizenship S.Ct. 64 men 607, Supreme Court construing L.Ed. in words to effectuate the limitation were to it would statute, see fit since legislators did not construction at hand. The tend encourage “American” adjective hiring use With them. se.a- very ports preference act men in American applied title amendment, American seamen the aliens would Act was an because the Jones suppose right against from their em- its omission of suit cannot ployers oversight. merely should those itself was occur the statute Congress ports, A while would. Instead, evident American seаmen deliberately reasoning word “sea- similar been set forth leave the line chose to meaning ap- by Supreme man” Court in S. S. its full and unrestricted Strathearn 354, plicable Dillon, supra, pages Americans alike un- Co. v. 252 U.S. at aliens and Cir., 355, 607, Paula, 2 91 F.2d pages 40 S.Ct. at 64 L.Ed. less cases like The 1001, may distinguished which we think in connection section of the be with another way in the to mentioned. statute. hereafter be Eudora, Congress authority supra, has undoubted six In Patterson v. The seamen, applicable make statute of this sort “one or Amer of whom were more ports. citizens”, vessels Patterson v. ican on in New York 169, Eudora, 190 U.S. аboard a British from vessel for 1002; Portland, Rio, L.Ed. see also S. Co. v. Maine, Strathearn S. “final of dis Dillon, supra, page page charge 40 S.Ct. at in the United States of Ameri 352, 64 L.Ed. 607. ship ca or Canada.” 110 F. 430. At time of twenty paid ment dollars was on account to Cir., In Bergoty, Gambera v. 132 F.2d each of them. The seamen sued under a certiorari denied 319 U.S. statute making U.S.C.A § upheld this court ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‍pay unlawful “any wages advance sea of an seaman on a alien man,” and providing pay that such advance Act where the alien sue ment should defense to an action for long been a resident of the United payment wages. of full The statute States. The Fifth Circuit in Arthur v. expressly applicable foreign vessels, made Compagnie Transatlantique, 5 Generale express no language but scope extended Cir., 662, 72 agreed nationality F.2d of Supreme the word Court, “seaman.” The unimportant, holding that a stevedore holding in applicable the statute unproven citizenship injured of aboard a vessels, U.S., said page at 172of 190 page foreign vessel in Canal Zone was en- S.Ct., 822 of 23 47 L.Ed. 1002: “It Act; is true presum- titled to sue the Jones title that the of the act of 1898is ‘An Act to ably stevedore was a resident of the Amend Laws Relating Zone, to American although Canal that factor does not Seamen,’ it has but been held that the title seem to entered into the consideration statute, part is no of a and cannot Paula, of in 2 be used the court that case. In The naught to set at its meaning.” obvious Cir., 1001, And 1004, F.2d 91 we declined to ex- U.S., page 179 of 190 page of right tend the to sue to a German seaman S.Ct., 47 1002, in the last signed sentence of on in Chili for a aboard opinion: opinion of “We are that it Brooklyn, Danish New York. The power is within the protect Congress of injured the seaman was shipping ports sailors in our on voyage, vessels while at the intermediate engaged in or commercе, interstate Jacksonville, Fla., was held in insufficient they belong whether citizens of this any right of itself to confer to sue under * * country or of a nation Act. We think the in The decision Jones Paula is not determinative the case at bar beTo the court sure there had to deter- for there Judge opinion Swan concluded the any mine whether seaman on a ves- by saying: “We think the intention to legis- statute, sel within the but we think the late for alien seamen signed who have arti- applicable statements here. The last sen- cles abroad a foreign ship ought on to be quoted tence is the considered by statemеnt clearly expressed before the courts extend Supreme applicable Court of the rule. the statute to them.” it, By protected by class Congress is de- In the instant case fined as “all shipping sailors in ports.” in an port, American injured and he was No distinction in between foreign is made port. sailors, American We think this is American suffi- and American cient both on authority. ships. reason and on This The definition was formulated in intention Congress to benefit with a having American connection statute a title as seamen would not contrary served restrictive we one are con- struing, place, involving prеcisely same there could have been no doubt that think, per- is, word—-“seaman.” This injured would have been in the dis- authority. charge suasive is true that “one or of his duties. We think that made more” of the seamen in were no that case difference that Bouritis waited until appear American citizens it does could but ambush the libellant ashore. Neither that all Supreme them were. The Court lapse short time, nor the distance made no distinction between If it had ship’s them. from the side, was long relevant. So necessary any of the seamen to as resulting causally assault was not too they show that were citizеns in order to remote —and clearly here it was not —the action, failed, they maintain the would have injured libellant was in the course of his to do only so. employment conclusion to be drawn when the assault was the con- is that sequence the court did it neces- not consider of action taken in discharge of his sary. interpretation duty. Otir Supreme of the We think the reasoning meaning Court’s is confirmed state- O’Donnell Co., v. Great Lakes 318 U.S. ment Appeals of the Court 87 L.Ed. and Marceau v. Blake, Kenney Ninth Circuit in Great Cir., Transit Corp., Lakes Morrow, F. J., of The 416, said denied certiorari 324 U.S. Eudora supports case: “It was there held that the this result and that it made applicable December no difference that libellant was at the time shipping in a United by Stone, J., of the shore. As was said C. vessel, decisions, States on a and that the stat- first of these two 318 U.S. at page 42, ute was valid.” page S.Ct. at 87 L.Ed. 596: “The recovery in the Act It is true that absence of given such, and, to the seaman as as in statute, liability for a tort committed on cure, case of maintenance ad- board a vessel while vessel is the ter miralty jurisdiction depends over the suit determined, ritorial waters of a state is place not on the where the is in- only аffects economy internal disci flicted but on the nature of the service and pline vessel, by law state relationship operation its of the ves- flag whose the vessel flies. American Law plying sel navigable waters.” Conflict of Laws 405. But in the Institute § sweeping reasoning applies instant the stat case the terms of same to the cause ute, the action for already decisions ex maintenance and cure. There distinction, payment can provisions purposes tended remedial claim, foreign determining this wages injury seamen on between half to of ship” suffered “in ports American and hаve the service of when in and vessels wages for one suffered “in recovery employ- advanced the course of his of allowed ports, ment.” Where and shipping in American results from duties seamen performed in Bergoty, the service ship, in Gambera v. of our own decision actually perform- a that libellant is denied U.S. certiorari ing duty ship a L.Ed. indicate a for the time when in- jury in sea occurs is immaterial. give the statutes aid of tendency to interpretation which would men a liberal But we do not rest our decision on in rights of the libellant seem cover to point ground this on this alone. The Su would not invadе the present case. preme said, Aguilar Court has v. Standard economy foreign vessels further of internal Co., Oil U.S. pro already done and would than the liability ship that of a competitive advantage to for lessen tanto owner and cure maintenance extends to hiring aliens rather than shipowners in eign “injuries incurred on dock other or for their crews. Americans premises which must going be traversed in public from vessel to the injured streets or re in them,” turning it from employment. to but added: He was a “How his of course beyond point far it extends that keep we need charged unauthorized to watchmаn now determine.” But night reasoning and boarding from persons opinion intimations-of the indicate a brought the colored woman liabil Bouritis that expulsion ity for in maintenance cure the case the libellant’s of of It was aboard. injuries received while the discharge duty, in seaman is woman, while this leave, that are to shore not due the assault. If Bouritis miscon gave rise to that part. think duct on his We and attacked the libel follows his knife drawn expulsion maintenance, the award to the libellant for where took when and lant said, just I can discover As I have wages to the end cure and displac- authority pоlicy reason of proper. or that not My believe brothers that law. Goulandris, appellants As Basil to the same upon owner impose Goulan Nicholas Goulandris and Leonidas he is liability seamen towards doing dris, individually co-partners and as seamen, may re- under towards American style of firm business under the name first, employment of the favoring sult Dis judgment Goulandris Bros., the I second. handicapping ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‍and in appel trict As to the Court is reversed. impose that, could if we could force see Ltd. and (Hellas) lants Goulandris Bros. owners, re- upon foreign liability same Co., Ltd. of Navigation General Steam injury ocсurred. gardless of Greece, judgment is affirmed. true, could plausible argument that were employ- handicap the that it would be made HAND, Judge (dissenting). L. exempt seamen, ment of American temptation this is much to affirm There liability foreign from owner decree; yet I how we can do cannot see so, I injuries ship. suffered on his Even exception well- without to a recognizing really how this would doubt some far principle principle settled moreover —a count, provisionally I shall assume but preserve which it seems to me desirable to importance to be enough it would my agree, gener intact. As it is brothers deci- factor in Congress. mind ally accepted law relating in all matters making sion are now not end will economy discipline” of a to “the internal fix the cannot handicap, it exists. We flag” law of the I “the controls. foreign sea- liabilities of owners to * gathered margin a number of deci injuries sea, occurring men principle varying sions which invoke this ports own; least, nobody other than our it; applications; nobody disputes and it suggests All Act does so. except undesirable, seems to me most accomplish that, we shall is hold when- pressing policy, some reason domestic happens ever in- to be disregard hardship owners, it. It is a jured ports, may in one of our recover may seamen, legal to have their whenever an might American seaman re- depend upon relations the accident of the Considering cover. how proportion small a in; ship puts call at which the it is injuries ship-hoard occur on impossible adjust constantly affairs to likely happen ports, are in our own I standards, shifting some of which will fa help cannot feeling that as a corrective of party, some, vor one another. Moreover— any putative handicap employment this, think, we should treat most seri Americans, this is much too tenuous to ously be irritating often must —it count. state of the flag for the state of a Further, call to insist that its own notions of what unless we are to overrule The just Paula, Cir., super owner between and crew shall 91 F.2d liability in these satisfactory sede those first circumstances depend state. will hereafter course, whether the occasions, are when the signs on in a port overriding port state of has an interest United States or abroad: certainly ideas; its own should insisting but in that not be critical. Of course it question critical, case at bar would be does not touch if the ordinary a doctrine of peace, or, try obtained, breach as I conflict of laws our shall but we have the show, object supposed in which can categorical be most declaration in The Belgen- so, any that we have I land, interest. submit supra, that in all that relates to a should demand clearest that we maritime law warrant contract flag pre- prima we If the before substitute vails. decision now to be made is to Jones Act — rily stand, rate a local frankly statute —for should overrule The pertinent Paula, capricious law of Greece. so will be the result if we * 24, Gregor, Scotland, Cir., L.Ed. 209, 105 26 217-219; The U.S. 6 207 F. 355, Rainey 1001; Belgenland, 114 U.S. 5 v. New Co., York & P. S. S. 152; 860, Cir., 29 9 United States 216 F. L.R.A.1916A, S.Ct. L.Ed. 1149; Rodgers, 249, 109, Nielsen, U.S. 14 Cir., 150 S.Ct. The Hanna v. 2 273 R, 1071; 171; Cunard S. v. L.Ed. S. Co. Grand Trunk Wright, 37 F. Co. Mellon, Cir., 814; Alpha 262 U.S. 43 S.Ct. 1306; 67 6 21 F.2d Cain v. S. S. Thompson Corp., Cir., L.Ed. A.L.R. 717. Towing Wrecking & Mc Association v. it, do not. And if we question do I only overrule should is whether Bouritis’s undoubt- think, I already suggested, have that it liability ed imputed ship’s is to be might perceptibly nettle those maritime Certainly owner. within falls the “in- powers ships frequent shores, whose ternal economy our discipline” ship: may, warrant, far, believe that I understand that all one. we are attempt we should not from them take power adjust, contrary to their de- sires, legal relations with which we concern. My brothers’ main be reliance Eudora, Patterson v. The U.S. UNITED and Strathearn STATES v. DAVIS. S. S. Dillon, Co. v. 252 U.S. No. 362. 350. L.Ed. 607. The can at second once Appeals, Circuit Court of Second Circuit. Congress out. When ruled added to proviso that “the courts of the United Aug. open shall be States to such seamen for its Writ 13, 1945. of Certiorari Nov. Granted enforcement,” I do not how the see court escape could concluding sea applied men were intended. As stat to that ute, bar, good unlike the one at there was reason might for this. create a substan- preference tial seamen as seamen, against American if thfe did statute apply both, would not for it then result American who saw a better berth in might desert with United States only wages, half his while a foreign loss Considering proclivity must lose all. er seamen to leave the at a offers, where a in better chance this added might to desertion ducement consider importance. genuine ation As Patter Eudora, supra, agree son v. that it practically certain some libel However, foreigners. point lants were discussed —indeed it was even alluded to—-and it does not seem to me we should treat as a decision. All the really court was concerned about was Congress constitutiоnally whether could against crimping apply make the ships. Besides, considering prepayments fact that the would condemned be made ashore ports, actually taking place

wrong our bor within well ders, might circumstance ‍​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‍which thought prevail over the that it affected the relations own also Finally, seamen. do ers opinion holding case as read any way the act never in rel the title contrary, interpretation; to its evant particu was that in that court meant all the plain language of case the itself lar controlling. title to taken as forbade closing perhaps that, In it is well to notice place ashore, although assault took

Case Details

Case Name: Kyriakos v. Goulandris

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Aug 3, 1945

Citation: 151 F.2d 132

Docket Number: 340

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.