DocketNumber: No. 13589
Judges: Neterer
Filed Date: 6/25/1935
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
Libelant seeks to recover a sum of money it was required by decree to pay for death of seaman caused by failure to remove deadly poison placed in deceased seaman’s quarters while the vessel was fumigated by the respondent under a contract with the libelant to fumigate the vessel and remove all poisonous gases and substances therefrom. Expenses of preparation for and at trial áre also sought.
Libelant pleads the contract to fumigate, the death of the seaman caused by the poisonous gases, the decree in admiralty, notice to respondent of suit and demand that it defend, its failure to do so and decree, together with statement of expenses of suit incurred. Exceptions filed are: (1) Not sufficient facts are averred to afford a cause of action; (2) averments do not state an action within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
A cause of action is stated when the judgment or decree is pleaded, the respondent’s failure to defend on notice, and opportunity afforded therefor. Washington Gas Light Co. v. District of Columbia, 161 U. S. 316, 16 S. Ct. 564, 40 L. Ed. 712; Burley et al. v. Compagnie De Navigation Francaise, 194 F. 335 (9 C. C. A.); Strathlevan S. S. Co. v. Baulch (C. C. A.) 244 F. 412. Whether recovery may be had, if any, for more than the amount decreed must be determined at trial.
The action is within admiralty. The contract to fumigate the ship while at anchor on navigable water was clearly a maritime contract, and admiralty jurisdiction in this case is not debatable. Hobart v. Drogan, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 108, 9 L. Ed. 363; Sideracudi v. Mapes (D. C.) 3 F. 873; Strathleven S. S. Co. v. Baulch. (C. C. A.) 244 F. 412, supra; Munson S. S. Line v.