Smith v. The Schooner J. C. King
Smith v. The Schooner J. C. King
Opinion of the Court
On June 18,1879, the steam barge James Davidson, having in tow the schooners Orgarita and J. C. King, left Chicago, bound to Frankfort, Michigan, to load part of her tow with lumber, thence to Cheboygan-, and thence to Buffalo or Tonawanda. The libellant was a seaman upon the schooner King, and by the shipping articles, which are in the usual form, he and the rest of the crew agreed “to work on any vessel in our tow, and on any lighter that may be used to load or lighten our vessels, and to work any place
The libellant contends that he had a right to refuse to load the King because it was Sunday; that the order to work or go ashore was virtually an expulsion from the schooner, and this without proper justification; and he sues for his wages for the whole voyage, and his travelling and other expenses.
The testimony for the libellant shows “that Frankfort is a land-locked harbor, and vessels are perfectly safe there in all kinds of weather.” So far, then, as the schooners Orgarita and King are concerned, it may be conceded (especially in view of the Michigan Sunday law) that there was no necessity to justify the Sunday labor required of the appellant. But the steam barge Davidson was not able to enter the harbor. She lay loaded with a cargo of grain, out in the open lake, awaiting her tow — the two schooners. Her safety was to be considered. While the lake was not then “very rough,” it
I am satisfied from all the evidence that, with reference to the situation of the Davidson, there was a reasonable necessity for the Sunday labor which the libellant was called upon to perform. It was, however, for the master of the King, under the then existing circumstances, to determine whether the work of- loading the schooner was necessary for the safety of the Davidson, and obedience to his orders was the plain duty of the libellant. It was not for him to set up his judgment against that of the master. That it was Sunday was no excuse for his refusal to perform the duty required of him, (The Richard Matt, 1 Biss. 440;) and I am of opinion that the master of the King had a clear right to discharge the libellant for his disobedience. Had these four rebellious seamen been permitted to remain on board their spirit of insubordination might have infected the rest of the crews.
I think the libellant forfeited his wages for the five days he worked on the King, (The Richard Matt, supra,) and I will therefore dismiss his libel, but will decree no costs against him. And now, to-wit, August 2,1880, the libel in this ease is dismissed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published