Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Thompson Vs. Lucas

Thompson vs Lucas

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-29-1920
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/93290

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
252 U.S. 358
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thompson

Respondent

Lucas

Excerpt

thompson v. lucas - 252 u.s. 358 (1920) u.s. supreme court thompson v. lucas, 252 u.s. 358 (1920) thompson v. lucas no. 391 argued december 9, 1919 decided march 29, 1920 252 u.s. 358 certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit syllabus decided on the authority of strathearn s.s. co. v. dillon, ante, 252 u. s. 348 . p. 252 u. s. 363 . 258 f. 446 affirmed. the case is stated in the opinion. page 252 u. s. 363 mr. justice day delivered the opinion of the court. this case was argued at the same time as no. 373, just decided, ante, 252 u. s. 348 . in this case, the libelants shipped as part of the crew of the british steamer westmeath for a voyage not to exceed one year, before the expiration of which time the vessel arrived in the harbor of new york, where she loaded and discharged cargo. a demand was made for one-half wages under § 4 of the seamen's act of 1915. the demand was refused, and an action was begun for full wages. a defense was set up that the libelants were deserters, and therefore not entitled to recover. the district court and the circuit court of appeals held that the libelants' case was made out under the statute. 258 f. 446. page 252 u. s. 364 the case is controlled by principles which governed the disposition of no. 373, the difference being that it appears in this case that demand was made more than five days after the vessel had arrived in the united states port. in all other respects as to the constitutionality and construction of the statute, our judgment in the former case is controlling. it follows that the decree of the circuit court of appeals must be affirmed. affirmed.

Full Judgment

Thompson v. Lucas - 252 U.S. 358 (1920)
U.S. Supreme Court Thompson v. Lucas, 252 U.S. 358 (1920)

Thompson v. Lucas

No. 391

Argued December 9, 1919

Decided March 29, 1920

252 U.S. 358

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SYLLABUS

Decided on the authority of Strathearn S.S. Co. v. Dillon, ante, 252 U. S. 348 . P. 252 U. S. 363 .

258 F. 446 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Page 252 U. S. 363

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case was argued at the same time as No. 373, just decided, ante, 252 U. S. 348 . In this case, the libelants shipped as part of the crew of the British Steamer Westmeath for a voyage not to exceed one year, before the expiration of which time the vessel arrived in the harbor of New York, where she loaded and discharged cargo. A demand was made for one-half wages under § 4 of the Seamen's Act of 1915. The demand was refused, and an action was begun for full wages. A defense was set up that the libelants were deserters, and therefore not entitled to recover. The district court and the circuit court of appeals held that the libelants' case was made out under the statute. 258 F. 446.

Page 252 U. S. 364

The case is controlled by principles which governed the disposition of No. 373, the difference being that it appears in this case that demand was made more than five days after the vessel had arrived in the United States port. In all other respects as to the constitutionality and construction of the statute, our judgment in the former case is controlling. It follows that the decree of the circuit court of appeals must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial