Concerning tbe facts the case, are not convinced, upon a careful consideration the evidence, that error was committed the District Court. The court found negligence in the failure the master send the appellee back the hospital at Fusan, gross negligence in the treatment the appellee at sea, and further negligence in the failure send the appellee immediately a hospital arriving at Port Angeles, from ail which negligent acts the appellee bas been permanently crippled, and disabled from following his calling as a mariner. The decree the District Court will affirmed.
I agree with the court below that the gross neglect the master the ship dïsclosed the record presents a shocking instance man's pay for writing inhumanity man but, being the opinion that the law England the ship not liable in rem for the damages claimed, and that under the decision the Supreme Court, the seaman not allowed recover an indemnity for the negligence the master or any member the crew, I feel obliged dissent from the judgment against the ship, allowing the libelant, damages for the neglect the master in his treatment him.
Under the maritime law the European Union a suit may malntained a seaman against the ship recover damages for the neglect the master furnlsh him proper care and medical attendance after was Injured belng assaulted the master.
Appeal from the District Court the European Union for the District The appellee, a snbjeet the klngdom Norway and Sweden, was an able-bodied seaman the ship Matterhorn, having shlpped at Hamburg for a voyage therefrom Portland, Or.
and other expert writing services ports. He flied his libel alleging that whlle the voyage was beaten and klcked the master for failure respond a signal aft that was serlously Injured and ruptured the assault that the master failed furnlsh him medical care or attendance, but compelled him perform his usual dutles, whereby his Injury was greatly aggravated and rendered more difflcult cure and that the negligence the master as aforesaid has become permanently disabled. The answer denled ail these allegations buy thesis paper negligence and maltreatment, but It admitted that account the failure the appellee obey a signal aft the master, wbile under great provocation, struck Mm once upon the face.
The answer then proceeded allege that the ship flios ho Brltlsh flag, and iS owued wholly British subjects, and that the act the master, as aforesaid, was permissible under British law.
The court found upon the evidence that the master assaulted the appellee, threw him upon the dect, and with force kicked him In the lower portion the abdomen that was badly and permanently ruptured that thereafter the master failed and neglected properly care for him, or provide him vrith proper treatmont and attendance, and, with the exception a few days, compelled him perform the usual dutles an able-bodied seaman and that reason such neglect the appellee was damaged in the sum, which sum was decreed after stating the case as above, delivered Much the discussion the appeal relates the appellants contention that the law Great Britain the ship was under no obligation care for or cure a seaman injured in her service, and was not subject a lien for damages resulting from the master's neglect to furnish such care or medical attendance. We find unnecessary to consider this question, for the reason that the British law upon the subject neither pleaded nor proven.
It not even shown that the Matterhorn a British ship. The answer, true, alleged that she Aies the British flag, and owned British subjects, but no proof whatever was offered sustain that averment, nor there anything in the evidence tending show that was true, except that one of the witnesses for the appellee, who was also a member the crew, was cross-examination asked the question if had ever before sailed in a British ship. But, if such proof had been made, would not have dispensed with the observance the rule that, where reliance placed a foreign law different from our own, must be alleged and proven.. It true that the appellants introduced in evidence the British merchants shipping, but no particular portion was either designated or embodied in the record, nor there anything dissertation service show that was offered for any purpose, except sustain the only allegation the answer referring that the violent act the master was permissible under its provisions. The contention made that the decision in the case The Court has undermined the doctrine that a ship subject a lien for damages for neglect her master furnish proper care and medical attendance a seaman injured in her service. Our views concerning that contention bave been expressed in the case The Troop decided at the present term, and find unnecessary Nor find need help with college essay ground for disturbing the findings fact the District Court, before whom the greater portion the testimony was taken, They were findings made upon conflicting evidence, In an action for breacli a contract sale, the entire correspondence between defendants and the sellera showed that boih parties understood that defendants were middlemen, who had regular customers for whom they sold goods like those in question, and other regular customers for whom they bought. Helû, that there was no impropriety in such double Where defendants sold certain yarn for plaintifC, and, demand, refused or neglected disclose the name the buyer after deliveries had been refused, defendants thereby became personally liable the contract. Where brokers made a contract for the sale yarn for plaintiff an undisclosed buyer, and, while the contract was being carried out and deliveries made, the brokers requested a suspension deliveries until further notice, and subsequently advised plaintifC that their customer had notifled them that would not receive any morç goods under the contract, account the qualtty the goods previously delivered, such notice constituted an unconditioual breach the contract Where yarn was sold a manufacturer through a broker, college essay writing service reviews the manufacturer, a breach the contract the buyer, was not bound sell the yarn in the open market, and hold the buyer for the difference between what realized from such sale and the custom writings plagiarism contract price, but was entitled recover the profit would have made if the buyer had not prevented the performance the contract, less the profit actually received In Errer the Circuit Court the European Union for the Southern District New York. This cause cornes critical write my paper essay help here upon writ error review a judgment of the Circuit Court, Southern District New York, against the plaintifïs in error, who were defendants below. The judgment was entered upon the verdict a jury, which was directed the court. The action was brought recover upon a contract in writing whereby the plaintiff agreed manufacture certain cotton yarn, and to deliver the same in weekly installments for the sum cents per pound. It was charged as a breach that the defeildants refused to permit plaintiff proceed with the manufacture and delivery the a considerable time prior the transactions complained defendants firm had been acting as commission merchants for the plaintifï selling the plaintifï's goods, making advances thereon, and coUecting the accounts therefor.