Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

THE VEMA

March 20, 1939

THE VEMA; HUBERTZ
v.
VETLESEN



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CAMPBELL

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a hearing on exceptions to the first cause of action, alleged in the libel herein.

This is a suit in rem, in Admiralty, to recover on two causes of action, the first for indemnity for personal injuries, and the second for wages.

 In the first cause of action, it is alleged that on or about the 10th day of April, 1935, while the Yacht "Vema" was alongside her pier at the foot of 23rd Street, Brooklyn, New York, the libellant, while performing his duties as a member of the crew of the "Vema", and while engaged in making fast a main sail, together with other members of the crew, and pursuant to orders negligently given, was struck by the main sail and thrown from the boom on which he was standing and precipitated against the boom, causing him to sustain severe bodily injuries, all to his damage in the sum of $2,000.

 In the second cause of action, it is alleged, that on the 5th day of July, 1935, while the "Vema" was docked in the port of Hanko, Norway, the libellant, was discharged without cause and justification and, that there was not paid him salary in the sum of $160, due him, under the contract of employment entered into between him and the claimant, on the 6th day of April, 1935.

 Claimant answered the second cause of action.

 The time alleged in the first cause of action, on which the injuries are alleged to have been sustained, is April 10th, 1935.

 This suit was not commenced until December 15th, 1938, which was more than three years and eight months after the injuries were alleged to have been received.

 Claimant filed the following exception to the first cause of action of the libel:

 "First: That it appears on the face of the libel that the bringing or maintaining of this action is barred by the provisions of Section 688 of Title 46 of the United States Code Annotated and by the provisions of the Statutes of the United States referred to therein and incorporated therein by reference.

 "Second: That it appears on the face of the libel that the bringing or maintaining of this action is barred by the Statute of Limitations of the State of New York, Civil Practice Act of the State of New York, Section 49, Subdivision 6.

 "Third: That it appears on the face of the libel that the bringing or maintaining of this action is barred by laches."

 Section 49, Subdivision 6, of the Civil Practice Act of the State of New York, referred to in the exceptions, reads:

 "§ 49. Actions to be commenced within three years. The following actions must be commenced within three years after ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.