From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., v. Butler

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 15, 1934
150 Misc. 903 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

Opinion

March 15, 1934.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

Plante Abrahams [ Hyman Greenberg of counsel], for the appellant.

J.R. Silvermintz, for the respondent.


A pilot is a seaman within the provisions of section 601 of title 46 of the United States Code. ( Somers v. Jersey Blue, 22 Fed. Cas. 13,169; Duggar v. Mobile Gulf Nav. Co., 224 Ala. 359; 140 So. 611.) His wages, therefore, are exempt from garnishment. There is nothing in the record showing that the statute pertaining to coastwise trade (U.S. Code, tit. 46, § 544; Duggar v. Mobile Gulf Nav. Co., supra) is applicable.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, HAMMER, CALLAHAN and FRANKENTHALER, JJ.


Summaries of

Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., v. Butler

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 15, 1934
150 Misc. 903 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
Case details for

Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., v. Butler

Case Details

Full title:BLOOMINGDALE BROS., INC., Appellant, v. FRANK BUTLER, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 15, 1934

Citations

150 Misc. 903 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
270 N.Y.S. 624

Citing Cases

Migliaccio v. Cappola

The creditor having failed to show that the debtor does not work on one of the excepted vessels, the statute…