Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/358-u-s-354-606578790
Timestamp: 2020-04-02 19:29:59
Document Index: 674781785

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 688', '§ 13312', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 2']

358 U.S. 354 (1959), 3, Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606578790
Citation: 358 U.S. 354, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368
Party Name: Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.
79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368
7. The case must be remanded for consideration of the claims against the three American corporation based on negligence. P. 385.
The amended complaint claimed damages from four separate corporate defendants. Liability of Compania Trasatlantica and Garcia & Diaz, Inc., a New York corporation which acted as the husbanding agent for Compania's vessels while in the port of New York, was asserted under the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and under the general maritime law of the United States for unseaworthiness of the ship, maintenance and cure,1 and a maritime tort. Liability for a maritime tort was alleged against respondents International Terminal Operating Co. and Quin Lumber Co. These two companies were working on board the S.S. Guadalupe at the time of the injury pursuant to oral contracts with Garcia & [79 S.Ct. 472] Diaz, Inc. Quin, a New York corporation, was engaged in carpentry work preparatory to the receipt of a cargo
of grain. International Terminal, incorporated in Delaware, was employed as stevedore to load the cargo. The jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked under the Jones Act and §§ 13312 and 13323 of the Judicial Code.
Following a pretrial hearing, the District Court dismissed the complaint. 142 F.Supp. 570.4 The court
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, 244 F.2d 409. We granted certiorari, 355 U.S. 807, because of the conflict among Courts of Appeals [79 S.Ct. 473] as to the proper construction of the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1875 (now 28 U.S.C. § 1331) and because of questions raised regarding the applicability of Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, to the situation before us. The case was argued during the last Term and restored to the calendar for reargument during the present Term. 356 U.S. 955.
Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 341 U.S. 246, 249. Petitioner asserts a substantial claim that the Jones Act affords him a right of recovery for the negligence of his employer. Such assertion alone is sufficient to empower the District Court to assume jurisdiction over the case and determine whether, in fact, the Act does provide the claimed rights.
A cause of action under our law was asserted here, and the court had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact.
Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 575.
(b) Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.. -- Petitioner, a Spanish subject, asserts claims under the general maritime law against Compania Trasatlantica, a Spanish corporation. The jurisdiction of the Federal District Court, sitting as a court of law, was invoked under the previsions of the Judiciary Act of 1875 which granted jurisdiction to the lower federal courts "of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, . . . arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . ." (now 28 U.S.C. § 1331).5 Whether the Act of 1875 permits maritime claims rooted in federal law to be brought on
Abstractly stated, the problem is the ordinary task of a court to apply the words of a statute according to their proper construction. But "proper construction" is not satisfied by taking the words as if they were self-contained phrases. So considered, the words do not yield the meaning of the statute. The words we have to construe are not only words with a history. They express an enactment that is part of a serial, and a serial that must be related to Article III of the Constitution, the watershed of all judiciary legislation, and to the enactments which have derived from that [79 S.Ct. 474] Article. Moreover, Article III itself has its sources in history. These give content and meaning to its pithy phrases. Rationally construed, the Act of 1875 must be considered part of an organic growth -- part of the evolutionary process of judiciary legislation that began September 24, 1789, and projects into the future.
Article III, § 2, cl. 1 (3d provision) of the Constitution and section 9 of the Act of September 24, 1789, have, from the beginning, been the sources of jurisdiction in litigation based upon federal maritime...