Murray v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.

Citations

• 207 F. 688
• 1913 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1342

Syllabus

<p>3. Shipping (§ 86*)—Injury to Stevedore—Action—Nature and Form.</p> <p>An action by a longshoreman to recover damages against a steamship corporation owning the ship in which he was working at the time of his injury, charging that the injury was caused by defendant’s negligence, and alleging that at the time of the injury defendant was in default in the payment of the accident funds used for compensation of injured workmen, required by Washington Workmen’s Compensation Act (Laws 1911, c. 74), and that the same was therefore not applicable, was a suit to enforce a common-law remedy in personam and not a proceeding against any res, independent of a personal defendant, and was therefore not exclusively within the jurisdiction of admiralty.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Shipping, Cent. Dig. §§ 343, 353-360; Dec. Dig. § 86.*]</p> <p>2. Constitutional Law (§ 46*)—Constitutional Question—Determination.</p> <p>Where, in a suit by^ longshoreman for injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence, plaintiff charged that defendant was in default in the payment of accident funds used for the compensation of injured workmen, and that demand had been made for the payment of the amount due, for which reason Washington Workmen’s Compensation Act (Laws 1911, c. 74) was inapplicable, defendant’s contention that the suit was unconstitutional would not be determined, since whether unconstitutional or inapplicable it was no bar to plaintiff’s right to enforce his common-law remedy.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.'—For other eases, see Constitutional Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 43-45; Dec. Dig. § 46.*]</p>