Court Opinion

ID: 9418700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:35:56.621464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:07.928538
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stone,
dissenting.
I think the judgment below should be affirmed on the authority of Rosengrant v. Havard, 273 U. S. 664 (Feb. 28, 1927), which affirmed, without opinion but on the authority of Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469 and Millers’ Indemnity Underwriters v. Braud, 270 U. S. 59, a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama, Ex parte Rosengrant, 213 Ala. 202, Ex parte Havard, 211 Ala. 605. In that case one employed as a lumber inspector by a lumber manufacturer, under a non-maritime contract of employment, was injured in the course of his employment, while temporarily on board a schooner lying in navigable waters near his employer’s mill. He was there engaged in checking a cargo of lumber then being discharged from a barge lying nearby, in navigable waters and alongside a wharf. Recovery for this injury under the local compensation law was allowed by the state court, on the ground that the contract of employment had no relation to navigation and was non-maritime. This, like the Rosengrant case, seems to differ from Northern Coal & Dock Co. v. Strand, 278 U. S. 142, in that the employee was not a seaman within the meaning of the Jones Act.
Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur.