Alaska Packers’ Associationv.Domenico

On March 26, 1900, at San Francisco, the libelants entered into written contracts with the Alaska Packers’ Association to travel to Pyramid Harbor, Alaska, and work there as sailors and fishermen during the 1900 season for fifty dollars plus two cents for each red salmon caught.¹ On April 15, 1900, twenty-one of the libelants signed shipping articles binding them to perform the same work aboard the vessel Two Brothers for sixty dollars plus two cents per salmon.²

The libelants sailed to Pyramid Harbor, where the association maintained a salmon cannery in which it had invested approximately one hundred fifty thousand dollars.³ They arrived early in April 1900 and began unloading the vessel and preparing the cannery for operation.⁴

On May 19, 1900, the libelants stopped work as a group and demanded one hundred dollars each for their services instead of the amounts stated in the earlier contracts, stating they would cease all work and return to San Francisco unless the increase was granted.⁵ Several days later, on May 22, 1900, the association’s superintendent directed his clerk to prepare a document that copied the San Francisco contracts but substituted one hundred dollars for the prior payment terms; the libelants signed this document before a shipping commissioner they had requested, although the superintendent informed them he lacked authority to alter the original agreements.⁶

At the end of the season the libelants returned to San Francisco and demanded payment according to the May 22 document. The association refused and instead paid each man the sum due under the March and April contracts.⁷ Those who had signed the April shipping articles collected their pay before the San Francisco shipping commissioner and executed full releases, while the others receipted in full at the company office.⁸

The libelants filed a libel in admiralty asserting claims under the May 22 document.⁹ The association answered by denying execution of that document, pleading lack of consideration, and alleging that the work had been performed and fully paid under the earlier contracts accompanied by releases.¹⁰ At trial the libelants attempted to show that defective nets supplied by the association justified their work stoppage, but the district court found the evidence did not support that claim.¹¹