Collie v. Fergusson, 281 U.S. 52 (1930)

U.S. Supreme Court, (January 13, 1930)

Docket number: 423

/us/281/52/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20016420
Id. vLex: VLEX-20016420

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Robert Williams, (82-1276), Plaintiff-Appellee, Leslie Dean Milton, (82-1852), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Defendant-Appellant., 726 F.2d 278 (6th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Supreme Court - American Foreign S. S. Co. v. Matise, 423 U.S. 150 (1975)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Cir. - Richard J. Chretien, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Exxon Company, U.S.A., Defendant, Appellee. Richard J. Chretien, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Exxon Company, U.S.A., Defendant, Appellant., 863 F.2d 182 (1st Cir. 1988)

U.S. Supreme Court - U.S. Bulk Carriers, Inc. v. Arguelles, 400 U.S. 351 (1971)

U.S. Supreme Court - Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (1982)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - James Edward Larkins, Appellant, v. Hudson Waterways Corp., Appellee., 640 F.2d 997 (9th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - J. Charles Cohen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S/S Consumer, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Appurtenance, Etc., in Rem and Sea-Land Service, Inc., in Personum, Defendants-Appellees., 746 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Dominic B. Arguelles, Appellant, v. U. S. Bulk Carriers, Inc., a Body Corporate, Appellee., 408 F.2d 1065 (4th Cir. 1969)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - William Petersen, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Interocean Ships, Inc., Defendant/Appellee., 823 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1987)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court COLLIE v. FERGUSSON, 281 U.S. 52 (1930)

[Page 281 U.S. 52, 57]

The evidence affecting the claim of Rowe is not reviewed, since, as already indicated, there is evidence which, in the light of the statute as now interpreted, supports the concurrent action of the two courts below.

It is unnecessary to pass upon the contention, apparently first made here, that section 4529 does not apply to fishing vessels (see notes to section 596, 46 USCA), and that the Dola Lawson, although licensed for the coastwise trade, must be deemed excluded from the operation of the act because of her use as a fishing vessel.

In view of the unwarranted retention of the amount awarded to petitioners, as wages, by that part of the decree of the District Court from which no appeal was taken, the costs in the Court of Appeals will be divided, two-thirds to appellants and on-third to appellees, and the decree below as so modified will be

Affirmed.

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access