Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Strathearn Steamship Company, Limited, v. Dillon

• 1919 • 252 U.S. 348 • White Court
In the case of Strathearn Steamship Company, Limited v. Dillon (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seaman who had been injured while working on a British ship that was docked in an American port at the time of his injury. The court held that despite being employed by a foreign company and serving aboard a foreign vessel, he was entitled to compensation under U.S law because his injury occurred within American jurisdiction. This ruling established an important precedent for...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1919
Docket: 373
252 U.S. 348
40 S. Ct. 350
64 L. Ed. 607
1920 U.S. LEXIS 1561
Argued: Dec 09, 1919

Strathearn Steamship Company, Limited, v. Dillon

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Strathearn Steamship Company, Limited v. Dillon (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seaman who had been injured while working on a British ship that was docked in an American port at the time of his injury. The court held that despite being employed by a foreign company and serving aboard a foreign vessel, he was entitled to compensation under U.S law because his injury occurred within American jurisdiction. This ruling established an important precedent for maritime law: namely, that workers' rights are protected regardless of their nationality or employer's country if they are injured within U.S territory.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Strathearn Steamship Company, Limited v. Dillon, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of The Seamen’s Act of 1915. He argued that it was not Congress' intention to give foreign seamen aboard foreign vessels rights to wages when they deserted their ship while in American ports. According to him, such an interpretation would interfere with international law and treaties which traditionally govern these matters between nations. Furthermore, he believed this could lead to diplomatic issues as other countries might view this as an overreach by U.S courts into their jurisdictional affairs concerning their own citizens on board their ships in foreign waters or ports.

Opinion written by Justice WRDay
Decided: Mar 29, 1920
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms