Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Forster v. Oro Navigation Co.

228 F.2d 319

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-12-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • penalty wages "statute, designed to protect seamen, must be liberally interpreted for their benefit"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Forster v. Oro Navigation Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
FORSTER v. ORO NAVIGATION COMPANY,228 F.2d 319(2nd Cir. 1955)
Keith W. FORSTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ORO NAVIGATION COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 118, Docket 23303.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued November 14, 1955.
Decided December 7, 1955.
Kirlin Campbell Keating, New York City (Joseph M. Cunningham, Vernon S. Jones and Walter X. Connor, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Dunn Zuckerman, New York City (Morton Zuckerman and Mortimer E. Greif, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FRANK, MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We agree with what Judge Bondy said in his opinion, reported in128 F. Supp. 113. We add the following as to one of appellant's contentions which Judge Bondy did not consider.

46 U.S.C.A. § 596 imposes the duty of payment on "the master or owner". We think that, if the master fails to pay without sufficient cause, his neglect becomes also that of the owner,Page 320so that either is liable.1The statute, designed to protect seamen, must be liberally interpreted for their benefit.2Accordingly, Compagnie General Transatlantique v. Elting,298 U.S. 217, 56 S.Ct. 770, 80 L.Ed. 1151, interpreting a statute, 8 U.S.C. § 167(a), with quite a different purpose, is inapposite.

Affirmed.
  1. Cf. Shilman v. United States, 2 Cir.,164 F.2d 649, 650. ↩
  2. Wilder v. Inter-Island Navigation Co.,211 U.S. 239, 29 S.Ct. 58, 53 L.Ed. 164; Shilman v. United States, 2 Cir.,164 F.2d 649, 650. ↩