Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/93705/pacific-mail-steamship-co-vs-lucas
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 14:49:27
Document Index: 418249544

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4552', '§ 4551', '§ 4552', '§ 4551', '§ 4552', '§ 4551']

Pacific Mail Steamship Co Vs Lucas - Citation 93705 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Pacific Mail Steamship Co. Vs. Lucas - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/93705CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnMar-27-1922Case Number258 U.S. 266AppellantPacific Mail Steamship Co.RespondentLucasExcerpt:.....and, to put it in our own way, that the purport of the overt acts in the circumstances was not to release the libellant's claim. the petitioner cites the words of rev.stats. § 4552, and
rosenberg v. doe,
146 mass.191, to show that such a position is impossible. but the same case at a later stage, 148 mass. 560, admitted a different result where the sailor knew too little english to understand the nature of the document and there was evidence that it was misstated to him. in the present case, we have the further very important fact, which does not appear in the report of
that the master did not give the respondent a certificate of discharge, as he was required to under a penalty of fifty dollars by rev.stats. § 4551, if the respondent really was..... Judgment:
Pacific Mail Steamship Co. v. Lucas - 258 U.S. 266 (1922)
Where a seaman went ashore at a port of call for hospital treatment, and, being asked only to sign for his past wages without mention of a discharge, executed with the master a mutual release under Rev.Stats., § 4552, but was not given a certificate of discharge as required by § 4551, and the purport of the overt acts in the circumstances was not to release his claim for future wages, maintenance, and cure during the remainder of the ship's voyage,
(considering also the power given by c. 153, 38 Stat. 1165, to set aside such releases and "take such action as justice shall require") that the release was not a bar to the assertion of such claim in a libel in admiralty. P.
258 U. S. 267
Both courts have found that the respondent was only asked to sign for his wages, that a discharge was not mentioned, and, to put it in our own way, that the purport of the overt acts in the circumstances was not to release the libellant's claim. The petitioner cites the words of Rev.Stats. § 4552, and
that the master did not give the respondent a certificate of discharge, as he was required to under a penalty of fifty dollars by Rev.Stats. § 4551, if the respondent really was discharged. Moreover, by a statute later in its present form than
it is provided that, notwithstanding the statutory