Howey and Mrak Genealogy - Person Page 353

Lucretia K. MacElroy

F
Last Edited8 Jan 2008
Marriage*Lucretia K. MacElroy married an unknown person.  

(?) Maceri1

M
Last Edited20 Dec 2008
Marriage*(?) Maceri married Carol Bensinger, daughter of Francis Bensinger and Verna Cossaboon.1 

Citations

  1. [S38] Individual contact, Timothy Gross, Cossaboon researcher, in e-mail dated 20 Dec 2008.

(?) Magee1

M
Last Edited14 Jun 2014
Marriage*circa 1900(?) Magee married Mamie (?) circa 1900.1 

Family

Mamie (?) b. 1881

Citations

  1. [S61] Newspaper notice, Note in Philadelphia Inquirer July 8, 1907 page 15 bottom of far right column: "Mrs. Mary Magee, 25 years old, of 2317 South Franklin Street, will marry Robert Howey, also 25 years old, of 2058 Vine Street. she lost her first husband when she was 19 years old."

John Magin

M
Last Edited5 May 2002
Marriage*John Magin married Ann Breneiss.1 

Family

Ann Breneiss
Child 1.John Everett Magin1 b. 1893

Citations

  1. [S90] Unknown author, Marriage Certificate, copy provided to me by Val Caulfield.
    Copy made at Logan Township office.
    Record of Marriage of John Everett Magin, of Bridgeport, NJ, age 28, son of John Magin and Ann Breneiss, to Ruth Olive Richards, also of Bridgeport, age 24, daughter of Samuel H. Richards and Hattie Torbert. Marriage took place on 12th Nov. 1921, at 10AM, officated by C N Dubill. Witnesses are Saml Richards and Hattie Torbert.

John Everett Magin1

M, b. 1893
Last Edited5 May 2002
Birth*1893John Everett Magin was born in 1893 at New Jersey.1 
He was the son of John Magin and Ann Breneiss.1 
Marriage*12 November 1921John Everett Magin married Ruth Olive Richards, daughter of S. Horace Richards and Harriet Reeves Torbert, on 12 November 1921 at Camden, Camden Co., New Jersey.1 

Family

Ruth Olive Richards b. 22 July 1897

Citations

  1. [S90] Unknown author, Marriage Certificate, copy provided to me by Val Caulfield.
    Copy made at Logan Township office.
    Record of Marriage of John Everett Magin, of Bridgeport, NJ, age 28, son of John Magin and Ann Breneiss, to Ruth Olive Richards, also of Bridgeport, age 24, daughter of Samuel H. Richards and Hattie Torbert. Marriage took place on 12th Nov. 1921, at 10AM, officated by C N Dubill. Witnesses are Saml Richards and Hattie Torbert.

Francis Maguire1

M
Last Edited23 Aug 2005
Marriage*after 1802Francis Maguire married Sarah (?) after 1802.1 

Family

Sarah (?) b. 7 February 1775, d. 26 September 1849

Citations

  1. [S162] Unknown author, Web Page, http://members.cox.net/mercergen/mercqu97.html
    RADFORD, MAGUIRE/MCGUIRE:
    Seeking maiden name for Sarah (b. 7 Feb. 1775, d. 26 Sept 1849 East Windsor) who married Asa RADFORD, son of Samuel, brother of John RADFORD, and who died in 1802, of E. Windsor (then Middlesex Co., later Mercer Co.). Sarah married 2nd Francis MAGUIRE/MCGUIRE. Lived in Nottingham, East Windsor, Mercer Co.
    - Eugenia Adamus. e-mail address. 31 March 1997.

Griffith Mahew1

M
Last Edited15 Jul 1999
Marriage*Griffith Mahew married Martha Ayars, daughter of Lewis Ayars and Rachel Elwell.1 

Family

Martha Ayars b. circa 1810

Citations

  1. [S149] Carol Gromer (e-mail address), 15 Jul 1999.

Anthony Stanley Mahnich

M, b. 11 December 1928, d. 29 June 1979
Last Edited21 Aug 2004
Birth*11 December 1928Anthony Stanley Mahnich was born on 11 December 1928 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 11 Dec 1928 birthdate per sister Gloria Mrak. This contradicts Soc Security record which records 11 Feb 1928.1,2 
He was the son of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh
Death*29 June 1979Anthony Stanley Mahnich died on 29 June 1979 at 6246 Brous Ave., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania, at age 50.3,4 
Burial*circa 1 July 1979He was buried circa 1 July 1979 at New Cathedral Cemetery, Front & Erie Aves., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.5 
SSN*His Social Security Number was 204-20-7499.1 

Census Data

DateLocationDetail
8 April 1930Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaAnthony Stanley Mahnich appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 in the household of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; I can't be sure that this Frank RAK is Frank MRAK. Some of the evidence fits, especially that he is listed as immigrating in 1922, the fact that he is married with no wife present in the household and first married at age 20. His age is hard to discern on the copy.6
4 April 1940Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaAnthony Stanley Mahnich appeared on the census of 4 April 1940 in the household of Anton Mahnich at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.7

Citations

  1. [S510] Social Security Death Index.
  2. [S22] Interview, Gloria (Mahnich) Mrak, 11 Dec 1928 birthdate per sister Gloria Mrak. This contradicts Soc Security record which records 11 Feb 1928.
  3. [S145] Robert Thomas Howey, Personal knowledge of Robert Thomas Howey.
  4. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Anthony Mahnich
    SSN: 204-20-7499
    Born: 11 Feb 1928
    Last Benefit: 19135 Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America Died: Jun 1979
    State (Year) SSN issued: Pennsylvania (Before 1951 ).
  5. [S89] Unknown author, Gravestone, Mahnich. Anton 1894-1948, Anthony S. 1928-1979, Antonia 1898-1982. Grave S.B.23.2.
  6. [S258] 1930 United States Federal Census, Anton Mahnich household, 1930 US Census, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roll T626-2100, ED 840, page 12A. Household is at 2571 Aramingo Ave, visit 189, family 197, Philadelphia. Anton, head of household, 35, married at age 20, Antonia, wife, 32, daughter Aurelia, 5, daughter Gloria, 4 5/12(?), son Anton, 1 5/12(?), Frank Rak boarder, 52?. Anton born Italy and parents born in Italy, mother tongue Italian. Antonia born in Yugoslavia and parent born in Italy. All children born in Pennsylvania, with father born Italy and mother born Yugoslavia. Frank Rak born Italy, father born Italy, mother born Yugoslavia. Rak is married, first married at age 20. Anton immigrated 1914, Antonia in 1920, both are naturalized, able to speak English. Frank Rak is an alien who immigrated in 1922 and can speak English. Anton is a driller? in the automobile industry and Frank Rak is a helper in the iron industry.
  7. [S570] 1940 United States Federal Census, Anthony Mahnich household, 1940 US Federal Census, population schedule, Philadelphia Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania, ED 51-285, p. 3A.
    April 4, Visit 39, 2575 Huntingdon Ave.
    Anthony Mahnich, 46, born Austria,painter, painting
    Antonia, 42, wife, born Austria, Janitress, machine industry, special questions - both parent born in Austria, native tongue Slovenian, first married at age 24, 3 children born
    Aurelia, 16, daughter, born PA
    Gloria, 14, daughter, born PA
    Anthony Stanley, 11, son, born PA.

Anton Mahnich

M, b. 14 January 1894, d. 21 October 1948
Last Edited20 Aug 2014
Birth*14 January 1894Anton Mahnich was born on 14 January 1894 at Sežana (Križ), Primorsko, Austria (now Slovenia); The church in the settlement is dedicated to the Holy Cross and belongs to the Parish of Tomaj.1,2,3,4,5 
He was the son of Josef Mahnich and Josephine (?)
Marriage*15 September 1923Anton Mahnich married Antonia Pecuh, daughter of Marko Pecuh and Mathilde Podplatnik, on 15 September 1923 at St. Michael's R. C. Church (Sacred Heart RC Hungarian Church), Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.1,6,7,8,9 
Death*21 October 1948Anton Mahnich died on 21 October 1948 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at age 54.10 
Burial*circa 24 October 1948He was buried circa 24 October 1948 at New Cathedral Cemetery, Front & Erie Aves., Philadelphia, Philadephia Co., Pennsylvania; grave S. B.23. 2.11 
NoteANTON MAHNI? (Kobdilj 1850 - 1920 Zagreb): bishop, doctor of theology, professor, writer, reviewer, editor
Anton Mahni? was one of the most important representatives of Slovene cultural, political and ecclesiastical matters from the end of the 19th century. After 1897, he played an important role in Croatia. He was famous for being a man of solid principles in every fieldofhisactivities.Aftergrammarschool,thestudyof theology in Gorica and his doctor’s thesis at the University of Vienna in 1881, he started to teach as a professor in the seminary in Gorica. He was editor of numerous magazines such as the bishop gazettes Folium Periodicum and So?a. In 1888 he began to publish his own magazine Rimski katolik (Roman Catholic), in which he expressed his strict Catholic views on society, politics and art. In his articles, he fiercelyattackedsomeliterarywriters,especiallyJosipStritarandSimonGregor?i?. He reproached their inconsistency of principles, influenceofliberalism,scepticismandsimilarprincipleswhichwereinconsistent with Catholicism. In the world of Slovene culture and politics, he triggered a public debate and accelerated the ‘’division of spirits’’, which interrupted the period of ‘’unanimity’’ in Slovene politics at that time.
In 1897, he became the bishop of the island of Krk in Croatia. He founded the Catholic gazette Hrvatska straža (Croatian Guard), and various other magazines. Outside Croatia, he helped found various Croatian academic associations. He was very active in the fieldoforganizingeducationalandcooperative societies in rural areas. He protected the Croatian language in schools, and ancient Slavic verbal sermons in churches. In 1902, he founded the Krk Ancient Slavic Academy and built a printing house. He had to defend himself because of his activities to the Vatican. He was the signatory of the May Declaration. He sent a memorandum to the Paris Peace Conference, in which he openly supported the annexation to Yugoslavia. In 1919, he was confinedtoRomeforoneyearbecauseofhisactivities,wherehe fell seriously ill. After his return to Zagreb, he died. His remains were solemnly taken from Zagreb to Krk Cathedral.
His literary activity had its origins in his secondary school years. His best known literary work is a short story called How Father Kobenzl Carried Cheese to Vienna (Kako je o?e Kobenzl na Dunaj kraški sir nosil, 1881). He was a very prolificandversatileauthor.Hehadaperfectcommandofwritingindifferentjournalistic styles and other genres, ranging from serious comments to essays, humorous stories and particularly sharp satirical compositions.
The interior of Štanjel Church contains his commemorative plaque. Since 2000, the vestry facade of this church has exhibited his bronze statue, made by Evgen Guštin. In Krk, he has a street named after him The Croatians have put him on the list of people waiting to be canonized.
http://vodnik.kras-carso.com/pdf/the_karst.pdf p.24
8 Sep 2010. 
Note*Family was in Gorica, near Cezana. Area also known as Tomaj. Info from Frank Pajkurich. From Wikipedia: Tomaj (Italian: Tomadio) is a village in the Sežana Municipality in the Littoral region of Slovenia.
The Parish Church in the settlement is dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul and belongs to the Diocese of Koper. A second church is a small building next to the cemetery and is dedicated to The Virgin Mary. 
Immigration8 July 1914He immigrated on 8 July 1914 to New York, New York; Declaration of Intention lists port of arrival as New York, NY, 8 Jul 1914. Certificate of arrival lists port as Tampa, FL. Verbal history from daughter Gloria indicates entry was in Florida.12 
Immigration*7 October 1914He immigrated on 7 October 1914 to Ship Borneo, Tampa, Florida; Declaration of Intention lists port of arrival as New York, NY, 8 Jul 1914. Certificate of arrival lists port as Tampa, FL. Verbal history from daughter Gloria indicates entry was in Florida. However, Carole Mrak Howey recalls being told that her grandfather "jumped ship" which means he entered illegally or as a stowaway. This seems to be confirmed by a National Archives search of the passenger list for the vessel Borneo which arrived in Tampa, FL on Oct. 7, 1914. Anton Manich is NOT listed among the passengers. He may have been on the crew and did not return to his ship but remained in the United States.13,12,14 
Naturalization5 February 1917He was naturalized on 5 February 1917 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; declaration of intention.15 
Residence5 February 1917He lived on 5 February 1917 at 2536 Richmond St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.15 
Name Variation5 February 1917 As of 5 February 1917, Anton Mahnich was also known as Tony Mahnich.12 
Occupation*31 October 1917He was division 1 seaman on 31 October 1917 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.2 
Name Variation7 January 1918 As of 7 January 1918, Anton Mahnich was also known as Tony Mahnich.4 
Residence7 January 1918He lived on 7 January 1918 at 2536 Richmond St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.4 
Event-Misc*7 January 1918He was WWI Draft Registration. Tony Mahnich, 2536 Richmond St., Phila, Phila, PA. Born January 14th, 1894, Kriz, Austria, Austria-Hungary. Declared for citizenship. Occupation able seaman at Phila and Reading Transfer Co., 2831 Richmond St. Phila. No dependents. Single, caucasian. Signed Tony Mahnich. Medium height and slender build. Eyes brown, hair dark brown. No disability. Date Jan. 7th, 1918. District #11, 27th precinct, Philada, Penna. on 7 January 1918 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.4
Occupation7 January 1918He was able seaman on 7 January 1918 at Phila and Reading Transfer Co., 2821 Richmond St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.4 
Name Variation7 January 1920 As of 7 January 1920, Anton Mahnich was also known as Anthony Mahnich.16 
Naturalization29 November 1920He was naturalized on 29 November 1920 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Petition for Naturalization.12 
Naturalization*6 December 1920He was naturalized on 6 December 1920 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania; Anton Mahnich Naturalization cetificate. Laminated certificate. Imaged from original in possession of Gloria F. Mahnich Mrak in 1999. Certificate number 1416248. Petition Volume 77 number 44242. Dated 6 December 1920 at Philadelphia, PA.17 
Residence*6 December 1920He lived on 6 December 1920 at 255 Salmon St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.17 
Occupation16 November 1922He was seaman on 16 November 1922 at S.S. West Bagnaw, New York, New York.18 
Occupation25 November 1922He was (an unknown value) on 25 November 1922 at S.S. Eastern Dawn, Brooklyn, New York, New York, New York.19 
SSN*7 December 1936His Social Security Number was 164-07-7280 on 7 December 1936.20 
Occupation27 April 1942He was (an unknown value) on 27 April 1942 at Warner Co., Birch and Berks Sts., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.5 
Event-Misc27 April 1942He was registered for draft on 27 April 1942 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.21,22 
Residence*27 April 1942He and Antonia Pecuh lived on 27 April 1942 at 6246 Brous Ave., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.5 
Event-Misc4 January 1944Anton Mahnich was Shipowner Held Liable without Fault for Personal Injuries of Longshoreman Incurred on Board Vessel
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Nov., 1945), pp. 127-128 on 4 January 1944 at Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C..23 

Census Data

DateLocationDetail
7 January 1920Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaAnton Mahnich appeared on the census of 7 January 1920 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.16
8 April 1930Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaHe and Antonia Pecuh appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; I can't be sure that this Frank RAK is Frank MRAK. Some of the evidence fits, especially that he is listed as immigrating in 1922, the fact that he is married with no wife present in the household and first married at age 20. His age is hard to discern on the copy.24
4 April 1940Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaAnton Mahnich appeared on the census of 4 April 1940 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.25

Family

Antonia Pecuh b. 3 April 1898, d. 31 January 1982
Marriage*15 September 1923He married Antonia Pecuh, daughter of Marko Pecuh and Mathilde Podplatnik, on 15 September 1923 at St. Michael's R. C. Church (Sacred Heart RC Hungarian Church), Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.1,6,7,8,9 
Children 1.Aurelia Mary Mahnich+ b. 23 May 1924, d. 16 Apr 1999
 2.Gloria Frances Mahnich+ b. Oct 1925, d. 23 Aug 2004
 3.Thomas Mahnich1
 4.Anthony Stanley Mahnich b. 11 Dec 1928, d. 29 Jun 1979

Citations

  1. [S22] Interview, Gloria (Mahnich) Mrak, 9/12/1998.
  2. [S202] Unknown author, Seaman's ID Card, US Dept. of Labor, Immigration Service, form 685, No. 139392, Seaman's Identification Card. Antonin Macknich, Austrian, age 23, on Feb. 14, 1917. Card dated 31 Oct. 1917.
  3. [S201] Unknown author, Naturalization Certificate, Anton Mahnich. Petition for Naturalization, File 44242, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National Archives-- Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, PA. Decalration of Intent list date of birth as 14th January 1894, Kriz, Austria.
  4. [S372] Ancestry.com. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-18 [database online] Provo, UT: Ancestry.com, 2002. National Archives and Records Administration. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918. M1509, 4,277 rolls. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration., Draft board 11, Roll 1907613, 2846, number 25, 37-7-3.
  5. [S251] Unknown author, Ancestry Web Site, Ancestry.com. U.S. World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942 [database online]. Provo, Utah: MyFamily.com, Inc., 2006. Original data: United States, Selective Service System. Selective Service Registration Cards, World War II: Fourth Registration. National Archives and Records Administration Regional Branches, various locations.
    Name: Anton Mahnich Birth Date: 14 Jan 1894 Residence: 6246 Brous Ave, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Birth: Kris, Austria Hungary Race: White Contact Person: Mrs. Antonette Mahnich Employer: Warner Co. Birch and Berk Sts. Phila PA Height: 5'-3 Weight: 150 Blue eyes, blonde hair, light complexity. Birth mark near wrist left arm. 4-27-1942. Roll: WW2_2240862.
  6. [S90] Unknown author, Marriage Certificate, Certificate lists church as Sacred Heart RC Hungarian Church.
  7. [S90] Unknown author, Marriage Certificate, Clerk of the Orphans Court, Philadelphia, Marriage license number 484892. 15th day of September, 1923, Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh were married. Certified and signed by Rev. Dr. Stepen Kemenes.
  8. [S271] Unknown author, Petition for Naturalization, Antonia Mahnich, Petition for Naturalization, File 121509, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia; Records of the District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National Archives--Middle Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  9. [S547] FamilySearch Record Search, online www.familysearch.com, Philadelphia City Marriage Index 1917-1938. Mahnick Anton (Pecuk) 1923 M 484892.
  10. [S68] Funeral Home Notice, Anton Mahnich funeral card. Died October 21, 1948. Theodore J. Baj Funeral Director 2510 Edgemont St., Phila.
  11. [S89] Unknown author, Gravestone, Mahnich. Anton 1894-1948, Anthony S. 1928-1979, Antonia 1898-1982. Grave S.B.23.2.
  12. [S201] Unknown author, Naturalization Certificate, Anton Mahnich. Petition for Naturalization, File 44242, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National Archives-- Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, PA.
  13. [S22] Interview, Gloria (Mahnich) Mrak.
  14. [S265] Unknown author, Ships Passenger Records, A request to the National Archives to search the passenger list for the vessel Borneo arriving Tampa, FL 7 Oct 1914 resulting in a negative finding. Microfilm M1844, roll 17, searched 6 Feb 2003. This corroborates the family verbal history that Anton "jumped ship", i.e., entered illegally.
  15. [S201] Unknown author, Naturalization Certificate, Anton Mahnich. Petition for Naturalization, File 44242, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National Archives-- Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, PA. Declaration of Intention lists address as 2536 Richmond, St.
  16. [S44] 1920 United States Federal Census, Joseph Kozole household, 1920 US Federal Census population schedule, Philadelphia, PA, ED 1844, roll T625-1624, p. 5B. Anton Mahnich is listed as a boarder. He is 25, single,white, male,, immigrated in 1914 and has filed first papers. He is of Slovenian ethnicity, born in Austria as were his mother and father. He is a sailor in the merchant marine. This Joseph Kozole family is very likely related to Angelo Mrak who became Anton Mahnich's son-in-law.
    Joseph Kozole, 34, alien came to US in 1912 with wife Mary, 28 also came in 1912 and an alien. Children are Mary, 7, Joseph, 5, Johnie (daughter), 2 7/12, and Alphonse 2/12. All the children were born in PA. Other boarders are John Sicko, 28, single immigrated 1908 and John Berkina, 52, married, immigrated 1914.
  17. [S177] Unknown repository Naturalization Ceritificate, Vol. 77 No. 44242 (6 dec 1920), unknown repository address.
  18. [S203] Unknown author, Sea Service Bureau Form 7174, Ch Mate A Mahnich, rating AB, Aust. Nat., S.S. West Bagnaw, report at once to Morse Dock 56 Br Bklyn?.
  19. [S223] Unknown author, Ellis Island Web Site, Ships records of discharged seamen, 25 November 1922. Anton Mahnich, of Austrian nationlality signed on to crew of S.S. Eastern Dawn, Black Diamond S.S. Corp., in Philadelphia on 7 Sep 1922. Sailed to Rotterdam and arrived in Brooklyn on 29 October 1922. Departed Rotterdam 13 Oct 1922.
  20. [S563] Social Security Card, Social Security card of Anton Mahnich found at home of Frank Pajkurich, March 2010.
  21. [S251] Unknown author, Ancestry Web Site, Ancestry.com. U.S. World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942 [database online]. Provo, Utah: MyFamily.com, Inc., 2006. Original data: United States, Selective Service System. Selective Service Registration Cards, World War II: Fourth Registration. National Archives and Records Administration Regional Branches, various locations.
    Name: Anton Mahnich Birth Date: 14 Jan 1894 Residence: 6246 Brous Ave, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Birth: Kris, Austria Hungary Race: White Contact Person: Mrs. Antonette Mahnich Employer: Warner Co. Birch and Berk Sts. Phila PA Height: 5'-3 Weight: 150 Blue eyes, blonde hair, light complexion. Birth mark near wrist left arm. 4-27-1942. Roll: WW2_2240862.
  22. [S389] WWII Draft Registration Cards, 1942, Orignal card for Anton Mahnich found in possessions of Frank Pajkurich March 2010. This card does not agree with the Ancestry record in some ways. Anton is listed as 5-7-1/2 and 175 pounds with brown eyes, brown hard and dard complexion. Dated 27 Apr 1942.
  23. [S162] Unknown author, Web Page, http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/vol/getcase/US/321/… on 17 Jan 2004.
    U.S. Supreme Court
    MAHNICH v. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96 (1944)
    321 U.S. 96

    MAHNICH
    v.
    SOUTHERN S.S. CO.
    No. 200.

    Argued Jan. 5, 1944.
    Decided Jan. 31, 1944.



    Mr. Abraham E. Freedman, of Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners.

    Mr. Joseph W. Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent. [321 U.S. 96, 97]

    Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Petitioner, a seaman on respondent's vessel, the 'Wichita Falls', was injured, while at sea, by a fall from a staging, which gave way when a piece of defective rope supporting it parted. The rope was supplied by the mate when there was ample sound rope available for use in rigging the staging. The question is whether the defect in the staging was a breach of the warranty of seaworthiness rendering the owner liable to indemnify the seaman for his injury.

    Petitioner brought this suit in personam in admiralty in the District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, to recover indemnity and maintenance and cure. On the trial the evidence showed that the mate ordered petitioner to paint the bridge and to stand on the staging for that purpose. The staging consisted of a board supported at both ends by rope which, if sound, was sufficient in strength to sustain the stage and its load. The boatswain, by direction of the mate, had cut the rope for the staging from a coil, which had been stored for two years in the Lyle gun box. The rope, intended for use with the Lyle life-saving apparatus, had never been used. There was testimony that it had been examined and tested by the boatswain and the mate and that it was generally sound in appearance. After the accident, examination of the rope at the point where it broke showed that it was so rotten as to be inadequate to support the strain imposed upon it.

    The trial judge concluded from the evidence that there was sound rope on board available for rigging the staging. He found that there was no fault in the manner in which the stage had been rigged, but that the rope selected by the mate was defective and that petitioner's injury was attributable to the negligence of the boatswain and the [321 U.S. 96, 98] mate in failing to observe the defect. 1 He held that the proceeding was brought too late to recover for the negligence under the Jones Act, and that the 'Wichita Falls' was not unseaworthy by reason of the defective rope used in rigging the staging, citing Plamals v. The Pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151, 155 , 48 S.Ct. 457, 458. He accordingly denied indemnity to petitioner, but gave judgment in his favor for maintenance and cure.

    The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 129 F.2d 857, 135 F.2d 602, by a divided court, resting its decision on the statement quoted from the opinion in The Pinar Del Rio, supra, 277 U.S. at page 155, 48 S.Ct. at page 458, that 'The record does not support the suggestion that the Pinar Del Rio was unseaworthy. The mate selected a bad rope when good ones were available.' We granted certiorari, 320 U.S. 725 , 64 S.Ct. 56, upon a petition which urged that the statement quoted from The Pinar Del Rio, supra, does not rule this case, and that the decision below is inconsistent with the decisions in The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 , 23 S.Ct. 483, and in Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424 , 59 S.Ct. 262.

    The sole issue presented by the petition for certiorari is that of respondent's liability to indemnify petitioner for the injury suffered by reason of the defective staging. No question is raised with respect to petitioner's right to recover under the Jones Act or his right to the award of maintenance and cure or its adequacy.

    A finding of seaworthiness is usually a finding of fact. Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co., 248 U.S. 139, 145 , 39 S.Ct. 53, 54, 1 A.L.R. 1522; Steel v. State Line S.S. Co., L.R. 3 A.C. 72, 81, 82, 90, 91. Ordinarily we do not, in admiralty, more than in other [321 U.S. 96, 99] cases, review the concurrent findings of fact of two courts below. The Camb Prince, 170 U.S. 655, 658 , 18 S.Ct. 753, 754, 755; The Wildcroft, 201 U.S. 378, 387 , 26 S.Ct. 467, 468; Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co., supra; Piedmont & George's Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U.S. 1, 13 , 41 S.Ct. 1, 5; Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383, 385 , 668 S., 61 S.Ct. 687, 690. Here, however, both courts below, holding themselves bound by The Pinar Del Rio, supra, have, on the facts found, held as a matter of law that the staging was seaworthy despite its defect. That conclusion of law is reviewable here.

    Until the enactment of the Jones Act, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U.S.C. 688, 46 U.S.C.A. 688, the maritime law afforded no remedy by way of indemnity beyond maintenance and cure, for the injury to a seaman caused by the mere negligence of a ship's officer or member of the crew. But the admiralty rule that the vessel and owner are liable to indemnify a seaman for injury caused by unseaworthiness of the vessel or its appurtenant appliances and equipment, has been the settled law since this Court's ruling to that effect in The Osceola, supra, 189 U.S. at page 175, 23 S.Ct. at page 487. Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372, 380 , 381 S., 38 S.Ct. 501, 502, 503; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255, 258 , 260 S., 42 S.Ct. 475, 476, 477; Pacific S.S. Co. v. Peterson, 278 U.S. 130, 134 , 49 S.Ct. 75, 76; Cortes v. Baltimore Insular Line, 287 U.S. 367, 370 , 371 S., 53 S.Ct. 173, 174; Warner v. Goltra, 293 U.S. 155, 158 , 55 S.Ct. 46, 48; The Arizona v. Anelich, 298 U.S. 110 , 120 et seq., 56 S.Ct. 707, 710; Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith supra, 305 U.S. at pages 428, 429, 59 S.Ct. at page 265; O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36, 40 , 63 S.Ct. 488, 491. The latter rule seems to have been derived from the seaman's privilege to abandon a ship improperly fitted out, and was generally applied, before its statement in The Osceola, supra, by numerous decisions of the lower federal courts during the last century. See The Arizona v. Anelich, supra, 298 U.S. at page 121, 56 S.Ct. at page 710, footnote 2.

    This was a recognized departure from the rule of the English law, which allowed no recovery other than maintenance and cure for injuries caused by unseaworthiness, Couch v. Steel, 3 El. & Bl. 402, until the enactment of the [321 U.S. 96, 100] Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, 39 & 40 Vict. Chap. 80, 5, reenacted by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, 57 & 58 Vict., Chap. 60, 458. By that statute there is annexed to every contract of service between the owner of a ship or the master and any seaman thereof, an obligation that all reasonable means be used to insure the seaworthiness of the ship before and during the voyage. See Hedley v. Pinkney Steamship Co., (1894) A.C. 222.

    In a number of cases in the federal courts, decided before The Osceola, supra, the right of the seaman to recover for injuries caused by unseaworthiness seems to have been rested on the negligent failure, usually by the seaman's officers or fellow seamen, to supply seaworthy appliances. The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855, affirmed 30 F. 142; The Neptuno, D.C., 30 F. 925; The Frank and Willie, D.C., 45 F. 494; The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; Wm. Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 5 Cir., 86 F. 886; and see The Columbia, D.C., 124 F. 745; The Lyndhurst, D.C., 149 F. 900. But later cases in this and other federal courts have followed the ruling of the Osceola, supra, that the exercise of due diligence does not relieve the owner of his obligation to the seaman to furnish adequate appliances. 2 Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra, 259 U.S. at pages 259, 260, 42 S. Ct. at pages 476, 477; The Arizona v. Anelich, supra, 298 U. S. at page 120 et seq., 56 S.Ct. at page 710; Beadle v. Spencer, 298 U.S. 124, 128 , 129 S., 56 S.Ct. 712, 713, 714; Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, supra, 305 U.S. at pages 428, 429, 432, 59 S.Ct. at pages 265, 267; The H. A. Scandrett, 2 Cir., 87 F. 2d 708, 710, 711; cf. The Edwin I. Morrison, 153 U.S. 199, 210 , 14 S.Ct. 823, 825.

    If the owner is liable for furnishing an unseaworthy appliance, even when he is not negligent, a fortiori his obligation is unaffected by the fact that the negligence of the officers of the vessel contributed to its unseaworthiness. [321 U.S. 96, 101] It is true that before the Jones Act the owner was, in other respects, not responsible for injuries to a seaman caused by the negligence of officers or members of the crew. But this is not sufficient to insulate the owner from liability for their negligent failure to furnish seaworthy appliances, see Judge Addison Brown, in The Frank and Willie, supra, 45 F. at pages 495-497; Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra, 259 U.S. at pages 259- 260, 42 S.Ct. at pages 476, 477, more than their negligence relieves him from his liability for maintenance and cure. The Osceola, supra, 189 U.S. at page 175, 23 S.Ct. at page 487; Pacific S. S. Co. v. Peterson, supra, 278 U.S. at page 134, 49 S.Ct. at page 76; Calmar S.S. Corp. v. Taylor, 303 U.S. 525, 527 , 58 S.Ct. 651, 652, 653.

    It required the Harter Act to relax the exacting obligation to cargo of the owner's warranty of seaworthiness of ship and tackle. 3 That relaxation has not been extended, either by statute or by decision, to the like obligation of the owner to the seaman. The defense of the fellow servant rule to suits in admiralty for negligence, a defense precluded by the Jones Act, has never avowedly been deemed applicable to the owner's stricter obligation to the seaman of the warranty of seaworthiness.

    The Osceola, supra, in answer to certified questions, laid down as separately numbered and independent propositions the rule of the owner's unqualified obligation to furnish seaworthy appliances, and the rule that the owner is not liable to a seaman for the negligence of his fellow servants. It nowhere intimated that the owner is relieved from liability for providing an unseaworthy appliance, merely because the unseaworthiness was attributable to the negligence of fellow servants of the injured seaman rather than to the negligence of the owner. Indeed, to support the rule of absolute liability, the Court, see The Osceola, supra, 189 U.S. at pages 173-175, 23 S.Ct. at pages 486, 487, relied on cases in which the vessel or its owner had been held liable for injuries resulting from unseaworthiness, although application of the fellow [321 U.S. 96, 102] servant rule would have barred recovery. Of one, The Frank and Willie, supra, the Court, after pointing out that the seaman was injured by reason of the negligent failure of the mate to provide a safe place in which to work, said, 'the question was really one of unseaworthiness, and not of negligence.'

    The Court cited, discussed and relied upon The Noddleburn, supra, Olson v. Flavel, 34 F. 477, The Frank and Willie, supra, and The Julia Fowler, supra. In each the seaman was injured as a result of his use of unseaworthy appliances rendered so by the negligence of a fellow servant. In The Julia Fowler, supra, the injury was caused by a fall from a boatswain's chair which the Court found, as in this case, was rigged with defective rope by reason of the fault of the mate. The inapplicability of the fellow servant rule to this type of case was recognized explicitly in The Noddleburn, supra, 28 F. at page 858, and in The Frank and Willie, supra, 45 F. at pages 495-497. And such was our holding in Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra, where it was said, 259 U.S. at page 259, 42 S.Ct. at page 477, 'without regard to negligence the vessel was unseaworthy.' See, also, the discussion in The H. A. Scandrett, supra, 87 F.2d at pages 710, 711.

    In thus refusing to limit, by application of the fellow servant rule, the liability of the vessel and owner for unseaworthiness, this Court was but applying the familiar and then well established rule of non-maritime torts, that the employer's duty to furnish the employee with safe appliances and a safe place to work, is nondelegable and not qualified by the fellow servant rule. Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U.S. 213 , 216-220; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642, 647 , 648 S., 6 S.Ct. 590, 592, 593; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U.S. 368 , 386-388, 13 S.Ct. 914, 921, 922; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Daniels, 152 U.S. 684, 688 , 689 S., 14 S.Ct. 756, 757, 758. It would be an anomaly if the fellow servant rule, discredited by the Jones Act as a defense in suits for negligence, were to be resuscitated and extended to suits founded on the warranty of [321 U.S. 96, 103] seaworthiness, so as to lower the standard of the owner's duty to furnish safe appliances below that of the land employer.

    The staging from which petitioner fell was an appliance appurtenant to the ship. It was unseaworthy in the sense that it was inadequate for the purpose for which it was ordinarily used, because of the defective rope with which it was rigged. Its inadequacy rendered it unseaworthy, whether the mate's failure to observe the defect was negligent or unavoidable. Had it been adequate, petitioner would not have been injured and his injury was the proximate and immediate consequence of the unseaworthiness. See The Osceola, supra, 189 U.S. at pages 174, 175, 23 S. Ct. at pages 486, 487, and cases cited. Any negligence of the mate in selecting the rope and ordering its use as a part of the staging, or of the boatswain in using it for that purpose, could not relieve respondent of the duty to furnish a seaworthy staging. Whether petitioner knew of the defective condition of the rope does not appear, but in any case the seaman, in the performance of his duties, is not deemed to assume the risk of unseaworthy appliances. The Arizona v. Anelich, supra, 298 U.S. at page 123, 124, 56 S.Ct. at page 711, 712; Beadle v. Spencer, supra, 298 U.S. at pages 129, 130, 56 S.Ct. at pages 714, 715; Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, supra.

    Nor does the fact that there was sound rope on board, which might have been used to rig a safe staging, afford an excuse to the owner for the failure to provide a safe one. We have often had occasion to emphasize the conditions of the seaman's employment, see Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, supra, 305 U.S. at pages 430, 431, 59 S.Ct. at page 266, and cases cited, which have been deemed to make him a ward of the admiralty and to place large responsibility for his safety on the owner. He is subject to the rigorous discipline of the sea, and all the conditions of his service constrain him to accept, without critical examination and without protest, working conditions and appliances as commanded by his superior officers. These conditions, which have generated the exacting re- [321 U.S. 96, 104] quirement that the vessel or the owner must provide the seaman with seaworthy appliances with which to do his work, likewise require that safe appliances be furnished when and where the work is to be done. For, as was said in The Osceola, supra, 189 U.S. at page 175, 23 S.Ct. at page 487, the owner's obligation is 'to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.' (Italics supplied.) It is not enough that the 'Wichita Falls' had on board sound rope which could have been used to make the staging seaworthy, if in fact the staging was unsafe because sound rope was not used. The Julia Fowler, supra; The Navarino, D. C., 7 F.2d 743, 746; cf. The Portland, D.C., 213 F. 699.

    Respondent's argument that the defective rope was a consumable supply of the vessel, not falling within the requirement that the owner must furnish seaworthy equipment appurtenant to the vessel, is inappropriate here because, as we have said, it was the stage which was unseaworthy, by reason of the use of the defective rope in its construction. The stage was used in the repair of the ship, and was as intimately associated with it and with the seaman's employment as are the gangways or other appliances or the passageways used by the seaman in doing his work.

    Moreover it would not be enough to say that this case concerns a consumable supply, for in Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra, the owner was held liable to a seaman for unseaworthiness, where a consumable supply of the ship was stored in such fashion as to render it dangerous to the seaman who used it. There gasoline had been negligently placed in a can marked 'coal oil' and the seaman was burned by an explosion which resulted when he attempted to build a fire with the gasoline, which he had taken out of the can thinking it to be coal oil.

    The statement from The Pinar Del Rio, supra, relied upon by the two courts below, could be taken to support [321 U.S. 96, 105] their decision, only on the assumption either that the presence of sound rope on the 'Wichita Falls' afforded an excuse for the failure to provide a safe staging, or that antecedent negligence of the mate in directing the use of the defective rope relieved the owner from liability for furnishing the appliance thereby rendered unseaworthy. But as we have seen, neither assumption is tenable in the light of our decisions before and since The Pinar Del Rio, supra. So far as this statement supports these assumptions, it is disapproved. We cannot follow it, and also follow The Osceola, supra, the cases which it approved and Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, supra. We prefer to follow the latter as the more consonant with principle and authority.

    REVERSED.

    Mr. Justice ROBERTS.

    I think the judgment is wrong. The case does not present a situation calling for liberalizing the maritime law in favor of seamen by abolishing the defense of a fellow seaman's negligence. Congress did that in 1920, 41 Stat. 1007, 46 U.S.C.A. 688. But it required actions in such situations to be brought within two years, which it subsequently extended to three years. The sole question is whether recovery should be permitted beyond the time when Congress said action must be instituted. I should say nothing further on this question save that the method of reaching the decision seems to me contrary to right exercise of the judicial function.

    The petitioner has undoubtedly obtained care and cure to which, as a seaman, he was entitled irrespective of fault on the part of owner or master. He failed timely to avail himself of his right to sue under 33 of the Jones Act. In an action under that statute the defense of the negligence of a fellow servant would not have been open to the respondent. In an effort to obtain damages, he brought [321 U.S. 96, 106] this action under the general maritime law. His recovery vel non under the unusual circumstances can be of little importance to others than himself and the respondent. But, in order to give him the demanded relief, the court resorts to nullification of an earlier decision, Plamals v. Pinar Del Rio, 277 U.S. 151 , 48 S.Ct. 457, indistinguishable in fact and law, which has stood unquestioned for sixteen years, and applied principles settled years before in The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 , 23 S.Ct. 483.

    The history of Plamals v. Pinar Del Rio is important. The libellant, a seaman on a British ship lying in United States waters, was ordered by a mate to repair a stack. A sling was used, for which the mate selected a piece of rope. The rope broke and the seaman was injured. He filed a libel in rem against the vessel. The owner gave bond and released the ship.

    The libel, after reciting the facts, alleged that the injuries were due 'to the fault or neglect of the said steamship or those in charge of her in that the said rope was old, worn, and not suitable for use.' The libel failed to refer to 33 of the Jones Act, but, at the trial, the libellant's proctor stated that he relied upon it. The claimant in its answer asserted that the vessel was of British registry and, as the only redress open to the libellant was under the British Workmen's Compensation Law, the Admiralty Court should decline jurisdiction. The claimant amended its answer to deny liability on the ground that the ship was provided with proper tackle but, through the negligence of an officer, bad tackle was selected.

    The District Court held that the British law,-the law of the flag,- afforded no action in rem nor any action for indemnity since there was an ample supply of good rope on board and the mate chose an insufficient rope for use.

    On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals held that the libellant's pleadings were inadequate but, as no point had [321 U.S. 96, 107] been made of their infirmity, went on to consider 'whether, on the facts proven and under any applicable law, libelant has a case.' 1 It said the libellant must make out a case of maritime tort; that, under the law of England, there could be no recovery and that if the applicable law were the maritime law of the United States the libellant could not recover for the improvident or negligent act of the mate, adding: 'If the vessel had been unsupplied with good and proper rope, a different question would arise.'

    That court further held that, although, under the Jones Act, libellant could have sued at law or filed a libel in personam, the statute gave no right to a libel in rem. The decree dismissing the libel was, therefore, affirmed.

    Petitioner sought review in this court and, in his petition and briefs, asserted the right to maintain a libel in rem under the Jones Act but, in the alternative, insisted that, under the general maritime law, independent of the Jones Act, the libellant was entitled to recover for the failure to supply, and keep in order, proper appliances, properly rigged, and for the unseaworthiness of the vessel in this respect.

    It will be noted how closely that case parallels the instant one. In both, though for differing reasons, the libellant was precluded from relying on the Jones Act which would have avoided all question of a fellow servant's negligence. In both, the libellant then sought to resort to his claim for indemnity for a maritime tort. In the Pinar Del Rio case ( 277 U.S. 151 , 48 S.Ct. 458) it was held that he had made no case on the latter theory, and in the present case it is held that he has made out such a case. This court, in the earlier case, held two things: first, that a libel in rem cannot be maintained under the Jones Act, and, second, that, if the case were treated as the Circuit Court of Appeals had treated it,-as one for [321 U.S. 96, 108] recovery of indemnity for a maritime tort,-the record would not support the claim. The court said:

    'The record does not support the suggestion that the Pinar Del Rio was unseaworthy. The mate selected a bad rope when good ones were available.
    'We must treat the proceeding as one to enforce the liability prescribed by Section 33. It was so treated by petitioner's proctor at the original trial; and the application for certiorari here spoke of it as based upon that section. The evidence would not support a recovery upon any other ground.' (Italics added.)
    These holdings were made in answer to extended argument in the briefs, the petitioner on the one hand contending that the vessel should be treated as an American vessel and as being unseaworthy, respondent contending that, whether British or American, she was not unseaworthy under the law of either nation and that the libellant's injuries were due to the negligence of a fellow servant. What the court said, therefore, was clearly responsive to the contentions of the parties. The present decision does not merely disapprove language used in the earlier case. It overrules the case and alters long-established law without adequate reason.

    There has been some suggestion that the holding in the Pinar Del Rio case to which I have referred crept into the opinion by inadvertence. But I cannot assume any such thing in view of the proverbial care which all the justices exercise to prevent expression of opinion on questions not necessary to the decision of a case. The decision must be taken at face value as the expression of the views of all the members of the court.

    Cases now cited in the opinion of the court were cited and considered by the court in the Pinar Del Rio case. 2 [321 U.S. 96, 109] The most important of them, and one on which the Circuit Court of Appeals relied in that case, was The Osceola, supra. 3 The instant decision not only overrules the Pinar Del Rio case but asserts that it is inconsistent with the holdings in The Osceola. If this be true it must be because the court has a different conception of the word consequence than that I have.

    In The Osceola this court, after the fullest consideration, recapitulated the admiralty law respecting the rights of injured seamen, inter alia, as follows (page 175 of 189 U.S., page 487 of 23 S.Ct.):

    'That the vessel and her owner are, both by English and American law, liable to an indemnity for injuries received by seamen in consequence of the unseaworthiness of the ship, or a failure to supply and keep in order the proper appliances appurtenant to the ship.' (Italics supplied.)
    'That all the members of the crew, except, perhaps, the master, are, as between themselves, fellow servants, and hence seamen cannot recover for injuries sustained through the negligence of another member of the crew beyond the expense of their maintenance and cure.'
    Unseaworthiness in the abstract does not afford a cause of action. An injury must be 'in consequence' of the unseaworthiness,-must be connected with and result from it. And 'unseaworthiness' covers a variety of situations variously affecting the work and risks of seamen. Unseaworthiness of the kind on which the court bases its opinion is very different from that due to a faulty mechanism which is an inherent risk to life and limb. If the doctrine now announced is right, a vessel supplied with the newest charts would be unseaworthy if the owner failed to remove old charts from the pilot house; it would make the owner an insurer that, no matter how [321 U.S. 96, 110] many adequate facilities were at hand, no insufficient one was anywhere on the ship. Here the socalled unseaworthiness did not consist in want of adequate ropes for the seaman's need. His injury was due entirely to the negligent selection by the mate of a piece of bad rope when ample good rope was at hand. The district court found that the mate was negligent, the Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the finding, and the disposition of the case in this court is on the assumption of the correctness of this finding.

    The question, therefore, is whether the ship is liable for the mate's negligent choice of a defective piece of rope when there was plenty of good rope aboard. Under the principles announced in The Osceola, recovery in admiralty for a maritime tort is barred by the mate's negligence. It was to avoid the interposition of such a defense of a fellow servant's act that the Jones Act made the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. 51 et seq., applicable to the claims of injured seamen.

    The court professes to have to choose between the doctrine it reads into the decision in The Osceola case and the ruling in Pinar Del Rio. But further it asserts that Pinar Del Rio is in conflict with Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger, 259 U.S. 255 , 42 S.Ct. 475, an opinion written by the same justice who wrote the opinion in the Pinar Del Rio case. The cited authority, as I read it, clearly ruled that in order for a seaman to recover for an injury where the ship is unseaworthy the unseaworthiness must be the direct cause of his injury.

    That was an action brought in a state court by an injured seaman against the owner of a motor boat. When the boat left on her voyage a can intended for the use of the crew, supposed to contain coal oil, and so labeled, had been filled with gasoline and the seaman, without notice of this fact, attempted to use the contents and was [321 U.S. 96, 111] burned. The supply of life preservers was insufficient and his injuries were aggravated by his having to search for one before he could jump overboard and extinguish the flames consuming his clothing. A verdict and judgment for the seaman was sustained. This court found that erroneous instructions had been given the jury but held the error harmless since the record showed that, without regard to the owner's negligence, the vessel was unseaworthy when she left the dock, and the court held (page 259 of 259 U.S., page 477 of 42 S.Ct.): '... if thus unseaworthy and one of the crew received damage as the direct result thereof, he was entitled to recover compensatory damages.' (Italics supplied.) The court cited, amongst other cases, The Osceola.

    I am at a loss to understand the citation of this case as authority for the present decision. The reasoning of the court's opinion seems to be this: In the Carlisle Packing Co. case recovery was permitted because the injury was the direct result of unseaworthiness. That decision, therefore, requires that the owner be held liable in the instant case although the seaman's injury was not the direct result of unseaworthiness, but of the mate's negligence. It must be upon the basis of such reasoning that the Pinar Del Rio case is overruled and the judgment below reversed.

    There is some suggestion that the Pinar Del Rio case was overruled by Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith, 305 U.S. 424 , 59 S.Ct. 262. It need only be said that the Pinar Del Rio case was not cited in the briefs of counsel in the Socony case nor referred to in the opinion and that in fact the Socony decision involved and purported to deal only with the general doctrine of assumption of risk and not with the defense of fellow servant's negligence. That the defenses are not the same is made plain by the fact that it has always been held that a fellow servant's negligence is no defense in actions brought under the Federal Em- [321 U.S. 96, 112] ployers' Liability Act,4 whereas assumption of other risks was a defense5 until Congress recently explicitly acted to abolish it as such. 6


    Indeed, if in the Socony case, the suit had involved a fellow servant's negligence instead of the seaman's assumption of the risk involved in the use of an unsafe appliance supplied by the vessel, the case would have been so plainly ruled by earlier decisions7 that it would have merited no consideration, much less an opinion, by this court.

    The statement in the opinion that the defense of a fellow servant's negligence had never been deemed applicable to the owner's obligation to the seaman under the warranty of seaworthiness ignores the point that if the seaman is to recover the unseaworthiness must, under the authorities cited, be the direct cause of the injury. If it is not, but a fellow servant's negligence is the cause, the seaman could not recover,8 until the law was altered by the Jones Act.

    The evil resulting from overruling earlier considered decisions must be evident. In the present case, the court below naturally felt bound to follow and apply the law as clearly announced by this court. If litigants and lower federal courts are not to do so, the law becomes not a chart to govern conduct but a game of chance; instead of settling rights and liabilities it unsettles them. Counsel and [321 U.S. 96, 113] parties will bring and prosecute actions in the teeth of the decisions that such actions are not maintainable on the not improbable chance that the asserted rule will be thrown overboard. Defendants will not know whether to litigate or to settle for they will have no assurance that a declared rule will be followed. But the more deplorable consequence will inevitably be that the administration of justice will fall into disrepute. Respect for tribunals must fall when the bar and the public come to understand that nothing that has been said in prior adjudication has force in a current controversy.

    Of course the law may grow to meet changing conditions. I do not advocate slavish adherence to authority where new conditions require new rules of conduct. But this is not such a case. The tendency to disregard precedents in the decision of cases like the present has become so strong in this court of late as, in my view, to shake confidence in the consistency of decision and leave the courts below on an uncharted sea of doubt and difficulty without any confidence that what was said yesterday will hold good tomorrow, unless indeed a modern instance grows into a custom of members of this court to make public announcement of a change of views and to indicate that they will change their votes on the same question when another case comes before the court. 9 This might, to some extent obviate the predicament in which the lower courts, the bar, and the public find themselves.

    Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER joins in this opinion.

    Footnotes
    [ Footnote 1 ] The dissenting judge in the Circuit Court of Appeals thought that this finding of negligence on the part of the ship's officers was erroneous. See 135 F.2d 602, 605. There was no attack on this finding here, and we have not examined the correctness of the trial judge's conclusion, for, as we will point out, the question whether there was such negligence does not control decision of the issues of this case.


    [ Footnote 2 ] By statute the owner's similar obligation with respect to the carriage of goods is merely to exercise 'due diligence to make the ... vessel in all respects seaworthy.' Harter Act, 3, 27 Stat. 445, 46 U.S.C . 192, 46 U.S.C.A. 192. See also Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 4(1), 49 Stat. 1210, 46 U.S.C. 1304(1), 46 U.S.C.A. 1304(1).


    [ Footnote 3 ] See note 2, supra.


    [ Footnote 1 ] The Pinar Del Rio, 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 984, 985.


    [ Footnote 2 ] The Julia Fowler, D.C., 49 F. 277; The Noddleburn, D.C., 28 F. 855; The Osceola, 189 U.S. 158 , 23 S.Ct. 483; The Navarino, D.C., 7 F.2d 743. The Portland, D.C., 213 F. 699, not cited, was, however, decided prior to this court's decision in the Pinar Del Rio case.


    [ Footnote 3 ] The Osceola has long been recognized as a leading case. It has been cited for the propositions it laid down at least eighteen times by this court, and nearly two hundred times by lower federal courts.


    [ Footnote 4 ] Illinois C.R.R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 , 36 S.Ct. 249.

    [ Footnote 5 ] Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492 , 34 S.Ct. 635, L.R.A.1915C, 1, Ann.Cas.1915B, 475.

    [ Footnote 6 ] Act of Aug. 11, 1939, 53 Stat. 1404, 45 U.S.C.A. 51, 54, 56, 60.

    [ Footnote 7 ] Jamison v. Encarnacion, 281 U.S. 635 , 50 S.Ct. 440; Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 282 U.S. 234 , 51 S.Ct. 111.

    [ Footnote 8 ] Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 , 38 S.Ct. 501; The Rosalie Mahony, D.C., 218 F. 695; Re Tonawanda Iron & Steel Co., D.C., 234 F. 198; Payne v. Jacksonville Forwarding Co., D.C., 280 F. 150; The Daisy, 9 Cir., 282 F. 261; Wood v. Davis, 5 Cir., 290 F. 1; Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sandin, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 760; Benedict Admiralty, 6 Ed., Vol. 1, p. 256.


    [ Footnote 9 ] See Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 , 60 S.Ct. 1010, 127 A.L.R. 1493; Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 623 , 62 S.Ct. 1231, 1251, 141 A.L.R. 514; Barnette v. West Virginia State Board of Education, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 251, 252, 253; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 , 63 S.Ct. 1178.

  24. [S258] 1930 United States Federal Census, Anton Mahnich household, 1930 US Census, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roll T626-2100, ED 840, page 12A. Household is at 2571 Aramingo Ave, visit 189, family 197, Philadelphia. Anton, head of household, 35, married at age 20, Antonia, wife, 32, daughter Aurelia, 5, daughter Gloria, 4 5/12(?), son Anton, 1 5/12(?), Frank Rak boarder, 52?. Anton born Italy and parents born in Italy, mother tongue Italian. Antonia born in Yugoslavia and parent born in Italy. All children born in Pennsylvania, with father born Italy and mother born Yugoslavia. Frank Rak born Italy, father born Italy, mother born Yugoslavia. Rak is married, first married at age 20. Anton immigrated 1914, Antonia in 1920, both are naturalized, able to speak English. Frank Rak is an alien who immigrated in 1922 and can speak English. Anton is a driller? in the automobile industry and Frank Rak is a helper in the iron industry.
  25. [S570] 1940 United States Federal Census, Anthony Mahnich household, 1940 US Federal Census, population schedule, Philadelphia Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania, ED 51-285, p. 3A.
    April 4, Visit 39, 2575 Huntingdon Ave.
    Anthony Mahnich, 46, born Austria,painter, painting
    Antonia, 42, wife, born Austria, Janitress, machine industry, special questions - both parent born in Austria, native tongue Slovenian, first married at age 24, 3 children born
    Aurelia, 16, daughter, born PA
    Gloria, 14, daughter, born PA
    Anthony Stanley, 11, son, born PA.

Aurelia Mary Mahnich1

F, b. 23 May 1924, d. 16 April 1999
Aurelia Mahnich Pajkurich with grandsons Frank and Daniel
Last Edited25 Jul 2011
Birth*23 May 1924Aurelia Mary Mahnich was born on 23 May 1924 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.2,3 
She was the daughter of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh
Marriage*28 May 1949Aurelia Mary Mahnich married Frank Anton Pajkurich, son of Frank Pajkurich and Slava Šikic, on 28 May 1949 at St. Timothy's Church, Levick and Battersby Sts., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.1,4 
Death*16 April 1999Aurelia Mary Mahnich died on 16 April 1999 at Delran, Burlington Co., New Jersey, at age 74.5,6 
Burialcirca 19 April 1999She was buried circa 19 April 1999 at St. Peter's Cemetery, Bridgeboro Rd. Bridgeboro Rd, Delran, Burlington Co., New Jersey; bured in crypt outside left side when standing facing the chapel.5 
Married Name28 May 1949 As of 28 May 1949,her married name was Pajkurich. 
SSN*before 1951Her Social Security Number was 201-12-9570 before 1951 at New Jersey.3 

Census Data

DateLocationDetail
8 April 1930Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaAurelia Mary Mahnich appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 in the household of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; I can't be sure that this Frank RAK is Frank MRAK. Some of the evidence fits, especially that he is listed as immigrating in 1922, the fact that he is married with no wife present in the household and first married at age 20. His age is hard to discern on the copy.7
4 April 1940Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaAurelia Mary Mahnich appeared on the census of 4 April 1940 in the household of Anton Mahnich at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.8

Family

Frank Anton Pajkurich b. 3 October 1922, d. 26 April 2010
Marriage*28 May 1949Aurelia Mary Mahnich married Frank Anton Pajkurich, son of Frank Pajkurich and Slava Šikic, on 28 May 1949 at St. Timothy's Church, Levick and Battersby Sts., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.1,4 
Child 1.Frank Pajkurich+

Citations

  1. [S267] Unknown author, Wedding Invitation, Mrs. Anton Mahnich requests the honour of your presence at the marriage of her daughter of Aurelia Mary to Mr. Frank Anton Pajkurich Saturday morning May twenty-eigth nineteen hundred and forty-nine at eight-thirty o'clock Saint Timothy's Church Levich and Battersby Sts. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Bride's residence 6246 Brous Avenue. Original in my collection.
  2. [S68] Funeral Home Notice.
  3. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Jan. 1, 2000.
  4. [S547] FamilySearch Record Search, online www.familysearch.com, Philadelphia City Marriage Index 1949. 869541 Pajkurich(Mahnick) Frank A.
  5. [S145] Robert Thomas Howey, Personal knowledge of Robert Thomas Howey.
  6. [S510] Social Security Death Index, via Ancestry.com 24 Aug 2002. AURELIA M PAJKURICH, SSN 201-12-957,0 Residence: 08075 Riverside, Burlington, NJ, Born 23 May 1924, Died 16 Apr 1999, Issued: PA (Before 1951).



  7. [S258] 1930 United States Federal Census, Anton Mahnich household, 1930 US Census, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roll T626-2100, ED 840, page 12A. Household is at 2571 Aramingo Ave, visit 189, family 197, Philadelphia. Anton, head of household, 35, married at age 20, Antonia, wife, 32, daughter Aurelia, 5, daughter Gloria, 4 5/12(?), son Anton, 1 5/12(?), Frank Rak boarder, 52?. Anton born Italy and parents born in Italy, mother tongue Italian. Antonia born in Yugoslavia and parent born in Italy. All children born in Pennsylvania, with father born Italy and mother born Yugoslavia. Frank Rak born Italy, father born Italy, mother born Yugoslavia. Rak is married, first married at age 20. Anton immigrated 1914, Antonia in 1920, both are naturalized, able to speak English. Frank Rak is an alien who immigrated in 1922 and can speak English. Anton is a driller? in the automobile industry and Frank Rak is a helper in the iron industry.
  8. [S570] 1940 United States Federal Census, Anthony Mahnich household, 1940 US Federal Census, population schedule, Philadelphia Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania, ED 51-285, p. 3A.
    April 4, Visit 39, 2575 Huntingdon Ave.
    Anthony Mahnich, 46, born Austria,painter, painting
    Antonia, 42, wife, born Austria, Janitress, machine industry, special questions - both parent born in Austria, native tongue Slovenian, first married at age 24, 3 children born
    Aurelia, 16, daughter, born PA
    Gloria, 14, daughter, born PA
    Anthony Stanley, 11, son, born PA.

Gloria Frances Mahnich

F, b. October 1925, d. 23 August 2004
Gloria Mahnich Mrak Easter 2002
Grandmom & Poppy Mrak with Allyn and Alex Howey
Last Edited26 Dec 2007
Christening*October 1925Gloria Frances Mahnich was christened in October 1925 at St. Anne's R. C. Church, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.1 
She was the daughter of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh
Birth3 October 1925Gloria Frances Mahnich was born on 3 October 1925 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.2,3 
Marriage*4 September 1948She married Angelo Frank Mrak, son of Frank Mrak and Karoline Tancabel, on 4 September 1948 at St. Timothy's RC Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.4
Death*23 August 2004Gloria Frances Mahnich died on 23 August 2004 at The Oaks Assisted Living hospice care, 240 Barker Rd., Wyncote, Montgomery Co., Pennsylvania, at age 78.5,6,2,3 
Burial*26 August 2004She was buried on 26 August 2004 at Resurrection Cemetery, 5201 Hulmeville Road, Bensalem, Bucks Co., Pennsylvania; Section 12, Range 46, Lot 57. Funeral mass at St. Katherine of Sienna RC Church at Frankford and Grant Aves.7,2,8 
Married Name4 September 1948 As of 4 September 1948,her married name was Mrak. 
(Witness) Death31 January 1982She witnessed the death of Antonia Pecuh on 31 January 1982 at Zebrugg Memorial Hospital, Riverside, Riverside Twp., Burlington Co., New Jersey.8,9,10 

Census Data

DateLocationDetail
8 April 1930Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaGloria Frances Mahnich appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 in the household of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; I can't be sure that this Frank RAK is Frank MRAK. Some of the evidence fits, especially that he is listed as immigrating in 1922, the fact that he is married with no wife present in the household and first married at age 20. His age is hard to discern on the copy.11
4 April 1940Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaGloria Frances Mahnich appeared on the census of 4 April 1940 in the household of Anton Mahnich at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.12

Family

Angelo Frank Mrak b. 19 February 1923, d. 2 March 2005
Marriage*4 September 1948Gloria Frances Mahnich married Angelo Frank Mrak, son of Frank Mrak and Karoline Tancabel, on 4 September 1948 at St. Timothy's RC Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.4
Children 1.Anthony Frank Mrak
 2.Carole Antonia Mrak+
 3.Linda Frances Mrak

Citations

  1. [S22] Interview, Gloria (Mahnich) Mrak, 09/12/1998.
  2. [S106] Death Certificate, Death certificate of Gloria F. Mrak, MCC2004-1139. Gloria F. Mrak, female, SSN 203-14-9030, date of death 23 Aug 2004 at age 78. Born in Philadelphia, PA on 3 Oct 1925. Place of death nursing home at 240 Barker Rd., Cheltenham Twp., Montgomery Co., PA. Decedent's usual occupation clerk-typist for City of Philadelphia. She completed 12th grade and was married to Angelo F. Mrak. Father's name Anton Mahnich, mother's name Antonia Pecuh. Informant Carol(e) Howey of 786 Oakfield Road, Philadelphia, PA 19115. Disposition by burial at Resurrection Cemetery, Bensalem, PA on 26 Aug 2004.
    Burns Funeral Home 9708 Frankford Ave., Phila PA. Time of death 1:15AM on 23 August 2004. Immediate cause of death "complications following left hip fracture". Certified by Jeanne M. Ottinger, RN, Chief Deputy Coroner, Montgomery County, Norristown, PA 19404. Filed 25 August 2004.
  3. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Gloria F. Mrak
    SSN: 203-14-9030
    Last Residence: 19115 Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Born: 3 Oct 1925
    Died: 23 Aug 2004
    State (Year) SSN issued: Pennsylvania (Before 1951 ).
  4. [S22] Interview, Gloria (Mahnich) Mrak.
  5. [S145] Robert Thomas Howey, Personal knowledge of Robert Thomas Howey, Linda called soon after Gloria drew her last breath at 1:13AM on 23 Aug 2004. Shorlty thereafter, Bob, Carole, then Tony arrived at the Oaks. After a very long struggle Gloria was finally at rest. --RTH 23 Aug 2004 8:36AM.
  6. [S61] Newspaper notice, MRAK
    GLORIA F., age 78, of Phila., died peacefully on Mon. Aug. 23, 2004, of complications of Alzheimers Disease in Wyncote, PA. Mrs. Mrak was born in Phila. and was the daughter of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh, both born in Slovenia. Gloria is the wife of Angelo F. Mrak; mother of Carole (Robert) Howey and Linda F. Mrak of Phila., and Anthony F. Mrak and his wife Lisa Piro Mrak, of Moorestown, NJ. Mrs. Mrak was the grandmother of Allyn and Alexander Howey. Gloria was the sister of the late Aurelia M. (Frank) Pajkurich, of Delran, NJ and the late Anthony S. Mahnich. A distringushed member of Kensington High School for Girls, Class of Jan. 1943. Gloria worked as a mother, homemaker, and most recently for the Riverview Home for the Aged. She worked at the US Naval Shipyard in South Phila. during WWII. Mrs. Mrak was intensely proud of her Slovenian Heritage and served as Secretary of Lodge 284 of the SNPJ for a number of years. Viewing 9 A.M. and Mass of Christian Burial to be at St. Katherine of Siena R.C. Church, 9700 Frankford Ave., (S. of Grant Ave) at 10 A.M. Thursday. Gloria will be laid to final rest at Resurrection Cem. on Thursday Aug. 26, 2004. In lieu of flowers, please send contributions in Gloria's name to Alzheimers Foundation of America, 322 8th Ave., 6th Fl., NY, NY 10001 or SNPJ Slovenian Heritage Center, 270 Martin Rd., Enon Valley, PA 16120.
    BURNS FUNERAL HOME, 215-637-1414
    Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News on 8/24/2004.

  7. [S61] Newspaper notice, MRAK GLORIA F., age 78, of Phila., died peacefully on Mon. Aug. 23, 2004, of complications of Alzheimers Disease in Wyncote, PA. Mrs. Mrak was born in Phila. and was the daughter of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh, both born in Slovenia. Gloria is the wife of Angelo F. Mrak; mother of Carole (Robert) Howey and Linda F. Mrak of Phila., and Anthony F. Mrak and his wife Lisa Piro Mrak, of Moorestown, NJ. Mrs. Mrak was the grandmother of Allyn and Alexander Howey. Gloria was the sister of the late Aurelia M. (Frank) Pajkurich, of Delran, NJ and the late Anthony S. Mahnich. A distringushed member of Kensington High School for Girls, Class of Jan. 1943. Gloria worked as a mother, homemaker, and most recently for the Riverview Home for the Aged. She worked at the US Naval Shipyard in South Phila. during WWII. Mrs. Mrak was intensely proud of her Slovenian Heritage and served as Secretary of Lodge 284 of the SNPJ for a number of years. Viewing 9 A.M. and Mass of Christian Burial to be at St. Katherine of Siena R.C. Church, 9700 Frankford Ave., (S. of Grant Ave) at 10 A.M. Thursday. Gloria will be laid to final rest at Resurrection Cem. on Thursday Aug. 26, 2004. In lieu of flowers, please send contributions in Gloria's name to Alzheimers Foundation of America, 322 8th Ave., 6th Fl., NY, NY 10001 or SNPJ Slovenian Heritage Center, 270 Martin Rd., Enon Valley, PA 16120.
    BURNS FUNERAL HOME, 215-637-1414
    Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News on 8/24/2004.

  8. [S145] Robert Thomas Howey, Personal knowledge of Robert Thomas Howey.
  9. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Antonia Mahnich
    SSN: 164-07-7042
    Last Residence: 19149 Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
    Born: 3 Apr 1898
    Died: Jan 1982
    State (Year) SSN issued: Pennsylvania (Before 1951 ).

  10. [S562] Notes by Aurelia Mahnich Pajkurich.
  11. [S258] 1930 United States Federal Census, Anton Mahnich household, 1930 US Census, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Roll T626-2100, ED 840, page 12A. Household is at 2571 Aramingo Ave, visit 189, family 197, Philadelphia. Anton, head of household, 35, married at age 20, Antonia, wife, 32, daughter Aurelia, 5, daughter Gloria, 4 5/12(?), son Anton, 1 5/12(?), Frank Rak boarder, 52?. Anton born Italy and parents born in Italy, mother tongue Italian. Antonia born in Yugoslavia and parent born in Italy. All children born in Pennsylvania, with father born Italy and mother born Yugoslavia. Frank Rak born Italy, father born Italy, mother born Yugoslavia. Rak is married, first married at age 20. Anton immigrated 1914, Antonia in 1920, both are naturalized, able to speak English. Frank Rak is an alien who immigrated in 1922 and can speak English. Anton is a driller? in the automobile industry and Frank Rak is a helper in the iron industry.
  12. [S570] 1940 United States Federal Census, Anthony Mahnich household, 1940 US Federal Census, population schedule, Philadelphia Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania, ED 51-285, p. 3A.
    April 4, Visit 39, 2575 Huntingdon Ave.
    Anthony Mahnich, 46, born Austria,painter, painting
    Antonia, 42, wife, born Austria, Janitress, machine industry, special questions - both parent born in Austria, native tongue Slovenian, first married at age 24, 3 children born
    Aurelia, 16, daughter, born PA
    Gloria, 14, daughter, born PA
    Anthony Stanley, 11, son, born PA.

Josef Mahnich

M
Last Edited27 Jun 2001
Marriage*Josef Mahnich married Josephine (?)

Family

Josephine (?)
Children 1.Josef Mahnich
 2.Louise Mahnich
 3.Jozefa Mahnich+1 b. c 1890
 4.Anton Mahnich+ b. 14 Jan 1894, d. 21 Oct 1948

Citations

  1. [S365] Alen Rencelj family chart.

Josef Mahnich

M
Last Edited4 May 1998
Josef Mahnich is the son of Josef Mahnich and Josephine (?)

Jozefa Mahnich1

F, b. circa 1890
Last Edited29 Jul 2005
Marriage*Jozefa Mahnich married Anton Rencelj, son of Anton Rencelj.1 
Birth*circa 1890Jozefa Mahnich was born circa 1890 at Austria (now Slovenia).1 
She was the daughter of Josef Mahnich and Josephine (?).1 
Married NameHer married name was Rencelj.1 

Citations

  1. [S365] Alen Rencelj family chart.

Louise Mahnich

F
Last Edited4 May 1998
Louise Mahnich is the daughter of Josef Mahnich and Josephine (?)

Thomas Mahnich1

M
Last Edited26 Jul 2000
Thomas Mahnich is the son of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh.1 

Citations

  1. [S22] Interview, Gloria (Mahnich) Mrak, 9/12/1998.

Kitty Coleman Mahoney1

F
Last Edited6 Nov 1999
Marriage*Kitty Coleman Mahoney married Ephraim Parent Sharp, son of Reuben Lore Sharp Sr. and Jennie O. Woodlin

Citations

  1. [S164] Inc. Brøderbund Software, World Family Tree Vol. 5, Ed. 1, Tree #3237, Date of Import: Nov 6, 1999.

James Louis Maillard1

M
Last Edited17 Jun 2007
Marriage*James Louis Maillard married Sallie Wallen, daughter of John Wallen and Mary Bowen.2 
Marriage*James Louis Maillard married Mary (?).3 

Family 1

Mary (?)

Family 2

Sallie Wallen

Citations

  1. [S38] Individual contact, Power of attorney document in collection of documents provided to me by Andrea Batcho 16 June 2007. James Louis Maillard and wife Mary name attorneys to act for them.
  2. [S38] Individual contact, Andrea Batcho e-mail 29 apr 2006.
  3. [S38] Individual contact, Power of attorney document in collection of documents provided to me by Andrea Batcho 16 June 2007. James Louis Maillard and wife Mary name attorneys to act for them. Document dated 8 June 1819.

Margaret Malden1

F
Last Edited23 Oct 1999
Marriage*Margaret Malden married John Bowen, son of Clifton Bowen and Martha (?).1 

Family

John Bowen b. 1770

Citations

  1. [S19] e-mail address.

Danielle Lee Maley1

F
Last Edited29 Oct 2007
Danielle Lee Maley is the daughter of Robert Paul Maley and Donna Lee Webb.1 

Citations

  1. [S396] Webb Ancestry.