Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 282 U.S. 234 (1930)

U.S. Supreme Court, (December 08, 1930)

Docket number: 32

/us/282/234/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/uravic-v-jarka-20016572
Id. vLex: VLEX-20016572

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 9th Cir. - Patrick J. Bilyk, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Vessel Nair, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 754 F.2d 1541 (9th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Supreme Court - McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991)

U.S. Supreme Court - Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Anna Mahramas, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., and House of Albert, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 475 F.2d 165 (2nd Cir. 1973)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Marvin W. Gebhard, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.S. Hawaiian Legislator, Her Engine, Tackle, Gear, Appurtenances, Matson Navigation Company, a Corporation, Matson Terminals, Inc., a Corporation, Respondents-Appellees., 425 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1970)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Eileen Anne Neely, Appellant in No. 93-2069, v. Club Med Management Services, Inc.; Club Med Sales, Inc.; Club Med, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiffs; Holiday Village (St. Lucia), Ltd. v. Joseph Lemaire, Third-Party Defendant, Club Med Management Services, Inc. and Holiday Village (St. Lucia) Inc., Appellants in No. 93-2102., 63 F.3d 166 (3rd Cir. 1995)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court URAVIC v. F. JARKA CO., 282 U.S. 234 (1931)

[Page 282 U.S. 234, 241]

ance in admiralty following the common law. The City of Alexandria (C. C.) 17 F. 390. And, as we believe, it was introduced into the common law almost within the memory of men still living upon a principle of policy. Labatt, Master & Servant, 471, et seq., 484; 2d Ed. 1394, 1408. It would be somewhat hard to maintain that principal as still the policy of the law in this case after the doctrine has been abolished for railroad employees and seamen. See International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50, 52, 47 S. Ct. 19.

If it should appear that by valid contract or special circumstances seamen on a foreign ship should not be protected by the statute it will be time enough to consider the exception when it is presented. But the purport of the words is plain and there is no reason to deny stevedores the benefit of them even if exceptions to the rule for seamen may be found upon peculiar facts.

Judgment reversed.

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