288
FEDERA.L REPORTER.
THE
VIGILANT.
STOCKER V. THE VIGILANT
and others.
(Di8trict Court, S. D. New York. March 4,1887.) 1. SEAMEN-LEG BROKEN-MEDICAL A'rTENDANCE-DUTY OF MASTER.
It is the duty of a master to procure any medical attendance that may be available, at ports where the vesseltoucb,es, for the benefit of seamen injured, where there IS reasonable evidence of a necessity for it.
2.
SAME-THE CASE-DAMAGES.
The libelant's leg having been broken 12 days before arrival at St. Helena, the master did not call in medical aid, because he did not believe the seaman's leg was broken, and thought him. shamming, notwithstanding the seaman's persistence that his leg was broken, and various circumstances indicating serious difficulty. The leg might there have been properly set. Upon arrival at New York, it was found grown together in so bad a position as permanently to disable his limb for seaman's duties. Five hundred dollars damages were allowed.
In Admiralty. Wilcox, Adams &: Macklin, for libelant.
Owen &:
Gray, for claimants.
BROWN, J. I cannot doubt, in this case, that the libelant's leg was broken by his first fall. The vessel, within 16 days, was at St. Helena, whe.re it cannot be dpubted that proper medical attendance could have been. procured. The libelant had constantly told the captain that his leg was broken. The captain noticed symptoms that he could llot understand, but was skeptical because the patient could move his toe. Many circumstances testified to should have satisfied the master that this seaman's leg was broken, and that he was not shamming. Through the want of proper attention the libelant's limb has been seriously injured, and cannot recover the strength it would have had if properly treated. He will be unable to perform a seaman's duties, or other work trying to the limbs. The circumstances appear to me to be such as clearly made it the master's duty to afford the seaman medical attention at St. Helena, where the difficulty could have been largely remedied. I must allow the libelant the sum of $500, which is as moderate an amount as I feel justified in awarding, considering the life-long impairment of the seaman's limb; and notwithstanding the fact that his second fall, apparently by his own want of care, undoubtedly aggravated the injury. Had I not been entirely satisfied of the master's good faith in his conduct, as well as of his intent to treat the seaman kindly and justly, I should have felt bound to add considerably to the sum above named. In consideration of all the circumstances, I think the above sum a just allowance.
WOODFIN V. PH<EBUS.
289
WOOD'FIN tI. PH<EBUS
«(Rrcuit Oourt, B.D.Vi1'giftia. February '10, 188?'.)
t
FEDERAL JuRISDICTION-CITIZENSHIP OF P ARTIES-C6NFLICT OF JURISDICTION -CONSTRUCTION OF WILL-ExECUTORS.
Bill by one of three executors, against co-ex".:utors and the legatees, for enforcement of the trusts of the will, and especially for sale of the Hygeia Hotel, situated on the territory of the United States at Fortress Monroe" and erected, held, and maintained by virtue of certain of congress,aud,subject to certain regulations contained in deeds from the secretary of war: 'The will was probated in the county court of Elizabeth City countY,'Virginia, where the executors qualified. Bill alleged that plaintiff, was a of Massachusetts, and the defendants all c.itizens of Virginia; that, disagreements and differimces between the executorl\, and for other reasons, it wasilnpossibleto execute the trusts of the will'whhout the aid of'a,court of equity. On general demurrer h{Jld: (1) The of the partieS as ,ab legeti being admitted by the and the validity of the will and the, regularity of its probate in the state being conceded, there is no con- ' fiict of juriSdiction betweeh that· court and this. (2) The allegations of the bill show such a contest and disagreement between executors concerning the administration of the trusts of a will as to bring the case within the usual and ordinary jurisdiction of a court of equity. ' ,
B.
SAME-dHARAdTER
Query: Have the courts of. United States jurisdiction, 1;Iy reason of the cipzenship of parties, when the controversy is betw;een plaintiff. a citizen of one state, and defendants, one of whom is aresideilt of a different'state, anll, the others of whom are residents on territory ceded by a. state to the United Statesfol' the purposes of a fort? (831llaou8 01/ the Court.)
8.
In. such a suit, upon a plea to the jurisdiction, alleging that one of the e)\:ecutOfsllnd all of the legatees were citizens, not of Virginia, but were residents of territory within the 'exclusive jurisdiction of the United States at Fortress :Monroe,held: (1) The federal courthas,jurisdictionby reason ,of the character of the cause, il,respective of the citizensh!P of the partiel\., (2) The !Iygeia Ilotel, being located ,upon territory of the ,United States at Fortress Monroe, federal jurisdiction under the federal constitution, (article 1, § S, cl. 17.) (3) The federal court also has jurisdiction under'the:federal constitution,(llrticle 8, 2,) by[reason of the necessity for a construction:of ,the several acts of congress, by virtue of which said hotel was erected, and which define the terms upon which it shall be maintained, held, and transferred. :
OF
CON'l'itOVERSY-FoRTRESS :MONROE.
*
SAM1I:-CEDED TERRITORY.
.
InEquity. The opinion states the case. White &; Garnett and John S. Wise, for plaintiff. L. R. Page and Sharp &; Hughes, for defendants. HUGHES, J. 'The case is before me on the demurrer to the bill. Speaking strictly with reference to the demurrer, I shall now state my conclusions on the questions argued so fully on the seventh and eighth instant. The suit is brought by an executor of a probated will against another executor, an executrix who is also a legatee, and the other lega. tees. There is no contest over the validity of the will, or question of the proceedings or tribunal by which it was established as the will of the testator. The bill alleges that the will requires a sale of a hotel property, supposed to be worth $400,000 or more, which belonged to the testator, v.30F.no.5-19