Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

Helen L. Maahs1,2

F, b. 11 March 1921, d. 19 May 2000
Helen L. Maahs|b. 11 Mar 1921\nd. 19 May 2000|p210.htm#i9345|Richard Joseph Maahs|b. 27 Apr 1896\nd. 20 Nov 1966|p210.htm#i9995|(?) Loretta||p208.htm#i9996|||||||||||||

Father Richard Joseph Maahs3 b. 27 Apr 1896, d. 20 Nov 1966
Mother (?) Loretta3

Marriage*Helen L. Maahs married Roscoe W. Howey Jr, son of Roscoe W. Howey and Josephine Lingg.1 
Birth*11 March 1921Helen L. Maahs was born on 11 March 1921.4 
She was the daughter of Richard Joseph Maahs and (?) Loretta.3 
Death*19 May 2000Helen L. Maahs died on 19 May 2000 at Bonita Springs, Lee Co., Florida, at age 79; Name: Helen L. Howey
SSN: 153-18-6457
Last Residence: 34135 Bonita Springs, Lee, Florida, United States of America
Born: 11 Mar 1921
Last Benefit: 33923 Bonita Springs, Lee, Florida, United States of America
Died: 19 May 2000
State (Year) SSN issued: New Jersey (Before 1951)
Source Citation: Number: 153-18-6457;Issue State: New Jersey;Issue Date: Before 1951.5
 
Married NameHer married name was Howey.1 
(Witness) Census1930She appeared on the census of 1930 in the household of Richard Joseph Maahs at Lenola, Moorestown Twp., Burlington Co., New Jersey.3 

Family

 Roscoe W. Howey Jr b. 6 June 1922, d. 8 August 1991
Children 1.Richard F. Howey1
 2.Carole Lynne Howey+
 3.Thomas Howey6
 4.Barbara Howey6

Citations

  1. [S318] Unknown author, Obituary, [Aug 11, 1991] ROSCOE W. HOWEY JR., 69, of Maple Shade, died Thursday at West Jersey Hospital-Marlton. Mr. Howey worked as a welder at Philadelphia Electric Co. for 37 years before retiring in 1985. He was also a Navy veteran of World War II. Survivors: his wife, Helen; two sons, Richard F. of Marlton and ...
    From SOUTH JERSEY DEATHS - Philadelphia Inquirer
    Complete obituary not available for free.
  2. [S38] Individual contact, E-mail from Carole Lynne Howey 5 Sep 2009.
  3. [S258] 1930 United States Federal Census, Richard Maahs household, 1930 US Federal Census, Moorestown, Burlington, New Jersey; Roll 1318; Page: 11A; Enumeration District: 44
    Richard Maahs 34 NJ
    Loretta Maahs 28 PA
    Helen Maahs 9 4/12 PA
    Richard Maahs 6 4/12 NJ
    Walter Maahs 3 2/12 NJ.
  4. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Helen L. Howey
    SSN: 153-18-6457
    Last Residence: 34135 Bonita Springs, Lee, Florida, United States of America
    Born: 11 Mar 1921
    Last Benefit: 33923 Bonita Springs, Lee, Florida, United States of America
    Died: 19 May 2000
    State (Year) SSN issued: New Jersey (Before 1951)
    Source Citation: Number: 153-18-6457;Issue State: New Jersey;Issue Date: Before 1951.
  5. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Helen L. Howey
    SSN: 153-18-6457
    Last Residence: 34135 Bonita Springs, Lee, Florida, United States of America
    Born: 11 Mar 1921
    Last Benefit: 33923 Bonita Springs, Lee, Florida, United States of America
    Died: 19 May 2000
    State (Year) SSN issued: New Jersey (Before 1951)
    Source Citation: Number: 153-18-6457;Issue State: New Jersey;Issue Date: Before 1951.
  6. [S162] Unknown author, Web Page, http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/courierpostonline/…

Richard Joseph Maahs1,2

M, b. 27 April 1896, d. 20 November 1966

Birth*27 April 1896Richard Joseph Maahs was born on 27 April 1896 at New Jersey.1,3,2 
Marriage*circa 1919He married (?) Loretta circa 1919 at Pennsylvania.1 
Death*20 November 1966Richard Joseph Maahs died on 20 November 1966 at Moorestown Twp., Burlington Co., New Jersey, at age 70.4,2 
Burial*circa 23 November 1966He was buried circa 23 November 1966 at Beverly National Cemetery, Beverly, Burlington Co., New Jersey.2 
Census*1930He appeared on the census of 1930 at Lenola, Moorestown Twp., Burlington Co., New Jersey.1 

Family

 (?) Loretta
Child 1.Helen L. Maahs+1 b. 11 Mar 1921, d. 19 May 2000

Citations

  1. [S258] 1930 United States Federal Census, Richard Maahs household, 1930 US Federal Census, Moorestown, Burlington, New Jersey; Roll 1318; Page: 11A; Enumeration District: 44
    Richard Maahs 34 NJ
    Loretta Maahs 28 PA
    Helen Maahs 9 4/12 PA
    Richard Maahs 6 4/12 NJ
    Walter Maahs 3 2/12 NJ.
  2. [S251] Unknown author, Ancestry Web Site, Name: Richard Joseph Maahs
    Service Info.: PFC US ARMY WORLD WAR I
    Birth Date: 27 Apr 1896
    Death Date: 20 Nov 1966
    Service Start Date: 22 Sep 1917
    Interment Date: 23 Nov 1966
    Cemetery: Beverly National Cemetery
    Cemetery Address: 916 Bridgeboro Road Bridgeboro Road Beverly, NJ 08010
    Buried At: Section M Site 955
    Source Information:
    National Cemetery Administration. U.S. Veterans Gravesites, ca.1775-2006 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2006. Original data: National Cemetery Administration. Nationwide Gravesite Locator.
  3. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Richard Maahs
    SSN: 146-12-2543
    Last Residence: 08057 Moorestown, Burlington, New Jersey, United States of America
    Born: 27 Apr 1896
    Died: Nov 1966
    State (Year) SSN issued: New Jersey (Before 1951)
    Source Citation: Number: 146-12-2543;Issue State: New Jersey;Issue Date: Before 1951.
  4. [S510] Social Security Death Index, Name: Richard Maahs
    SSN: 146-12-2543
    Last Residence: 08057 Moorestown, Burlington, New Jersey, United States of America
    Born: 27 Apr 1896
    Died: Nov 1966
    State (Year) SSN issued: New Jersey (Before 1951)
    Source Citation: Number: 146-12-2543;Issue State: New Jersey;Issue Date: Before 1951.

John Macelroy1

M

Birth*John Macelroy was born at Scotland.1 
Marriage*before 1880He married Della H Roberts before 1880.1 

Family

 Della H Roberts
Child 1.Lucretia Macelroy+1 b. 15 Oct 1880, d. 28 May 1914

Citations

  1. [S106] Death Certificate, Death record of Lucreatis Howey, NJ State Archive microfilm. Born October 15, 1880 in Camden, NJ. Parents John Macelroy born Scotland, and Della H. Roberts, born Kansas City. Married white female. Burial at Harliegh June 1, 1914. Undertaker F. Roderer & Son. Witnessed by Walter Howey, 962 Pine St. Filed 6/1/1914 by W. D. Brown.

Lucretia Macelroy1

F, b. 15 October 1880, d. 28 May 1914
Lucretia Macelroy|b. 15 Oct 1880\nd. 28 May 1914|p210.htm#i8812|John Macelroy||p210.htm#i8813|Della H Roberts||p252.htm#i8814|||||||||||||

Father John Macelroy2
Mother Della H Roberts2

Birth15 October 1880Lucretia Macelroy was born on 15 October 1880 at Camden, Camden Co., New Jersey.1 
Birth*15 October 1880She was born on 15 October 1880 at Kansas.1 
She was the daughter of John Macelroy and Della H Roberts.2 
Marriage*1900Lucretia Macelroy married Walter Clark Howey, son of John Tatum Howey and Ellen Clark, in 1900 at Camden Co., New Jersey.1,3 
Death*28 May 1914Lucretia Macelroy died on 28 May 1914 at 962 Pine St., Camden, Camden Co., New Jersey, at age 33.4 
Married Name1900 As of 1900,her married name was Howey.1 
(Witness) Census15 April 1910She appeared on the census of 15 April 1910 in the household of Walter Clark Howey at 555 Haddon Ave., Camden, Camden Co., New Jersey.3 
Name Variation28 May 1914 As of 28 May 1914, Lucretia Macelroy was also known as Lucreatis Howey.2 

Family

 Walter Clark Howey b. 12 November 1874, d. 16 May 1969
Marriage*1900She married Walter Clark Howey, son of John Tatum Howey and Ellen Clark, in 1900 at Camden Co., New Jersey.1,3 
Children 1.Blanche Howey3 b. 1901
 2.Benjamin Howey3 b. 1905
 3.Edith Howey3

Citations

  1. [S106] Death Certificate, Death record of Lucreatis Howey, NJ State Archive microfilm. Born October 15, 1880 in Camden, NJ. Parents John Macelroy born Scotland, and Della H. Robert, born Kansas City. Married white female. Burial at Harliegh June 1, 1914. Undertaker F. Roderer & Son. Witnessed by Walter Howey, 962 Pine St. Filed 6/1/1914 by W. D. Brown.
  2. [S106] Death Certificate, Death record of Lucreatis Howey, NJ State Archive microfilm. Born October 15, 1880 in Camden, NJ. Parents John Macelroy born Scotland, and Della H. Roberts, born Kansas City. Married white female. Burial at Harliegh June 1, 1914. Undertaker F. Roderer & Son. Witnessed by Walter Howey, 962 Pine St. Filed 6/1/1914 by W. D. Brown.
  3. [S60] 1910 United States Federal Census, Walter Howey household, 1910 US Federal Census, population schedule, Camden Ward 9, Camden, New Jersey; Roll: T624_874; Page: 11B; Enumeration District: 63. 555 Haddon Ave., 232/244. 15 Apr 1910.
    Walter Howey 35, married 9 years, NJ NJ NJ Locomotive Engineer P.R.R.
    Lucretia Howey wife 28 3 choldren, 3 living, Kansas Scotland Michigan
    Blanche Howey dau 7 NJ NJ Kansas
    Benjamin Howey son 4 NJ NJ Kansas
    Edith Howey dau 1/12 NJ NJ Kansas.
  4. [S106] Death Certificate, Death record of Lucreatis Howey, NJ State Archive microfilm. Born October 15, 1880 in Camden, NJ. Parents John Macelroy born Scotland, and Della H. Robert, born Kansas City. Married white female. Burial at Harleigh June 1, 1914. Undertaker F. Roderer & Son. Witnessed by Walter Howey, 962 Pine St. Filed 6/1/1914 by W. D. Brown.

Lucretia K. MacElroy

F

Marriage*Lucretia K. MacElroy married an unknown person.  

(?) Maceri1

M

Marriage*(?) Maceri married Carol Bensinger, daughter of Francis Bensinger and Verna Cossaboon.1 

Family

 Carol Bensinger

Citations

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

John Magin

M

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
John Everett Magin|b. 1893|p210.htm#i5555|John Magin||p210.htm#i5556|Ann Breneiss||p54.htm#i5557|||||||||||||

Father John Magin1
Mother Ann Breneiss1

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

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

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
Anthony Stanley Mahnich|b. 11 Dec 1928\nd. 29 Jun 1979|p210.htm#i1683|Anton Mahnich|b. 14 Jan 1894\nd. 21 Oct 1948|p210.htm#i1681|Antonia Pecuh|b. 3 Apr 1898\nd. 31 Jan 1982|p237.htm#i1682|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|Marko Pecuh|b. 24 Apr 1868\nd. 8 Nov 1914|p237.htm#i1685|Mathilde Podplatnik|b. 11 Nov 1869\nd. 26 Feb 1942|p243.htm#i1686|

Father Anton Mahnich b. 14 Jan 1894, d. 21 Oct 1948
Mother Antonia Pecuh b. 3 Apr 1898, d. 31 Jan 1982

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 
(Witness) Census8 April 1930He appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 in the household of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh at 2671 Aramingo Ave., Philadelphia, 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 

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.

Anton Mahnich

M, b. 14 January 1894, d. 21 October 1948
Anton Mahnich|b. 14 Jan 1894\nd. 21 Oct 1948|p210.htm#i1681|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|||||||||||||

  

Father Josef Mahnich
Mother Josephine (?)

Birth*14 January 1894Anton Mahnich was born on 14 January 1894 at Cezana (Kriz), Primorsko, Austria (now Slovenia).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 
Note*Family was in Gorica, near Cezana. Area also known as Tomaj. Info from Frank Pajkurich. 
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 
Residence5 February 1917He lived on 5 February 1917 at 2536 Richmond St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.15 
Naturalization5 February 1917He was naturalized on 5 February 1917 at Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; declaration of intention.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 
Occupation7 January 1918He was able seaman on 7 January 1918 at Phila and Reading Transfer Co., 2821 Richmond St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.4 
Note7 January 1918WWI 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.4
Residence7 January 1918He lived on 7 January 1918 at 2536 Richmond St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.4 
Census*7 January 1920He appeared on the census of 7 January 1920 at 2555 Salmon St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.16 
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 
Residence*6 December 1920He lived on 6 December 1920 at 255 Salmon St., Philadelphia, Philadelphia Co., Pennsylvania.17 
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 
Occupation16 November 1922He was seaman on 16 November 1922 at S.S. West Bagnaw, New York, New York.18 
Census*8 April 1930He and Antonia Pecuh appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 at 2671 Aramingo Ave., Philadelphia, 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.19 
Occupation27 April 1942Anton Mahnich was (an unknown value) on 27 April 1942 at Warner Co., Birch and Berks Sts., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.5 
Note27 April 1942Registered for draft.5 
Residence*27 April 1942He and Antonia Pecuh lived on 27 April 1942 at 6246 Brous Ave., Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.5 
Note4 January 1944Shipowner Held Liable without Fault for Personal Injuries of Longshoreman Incurred on Board Vessel
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Nov., 1945), pp. 127-128.20
 

Family

 Antonia Pecuh b. 3 April 1898, d. 31 January 1982
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 
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, unknown short title, 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 search.labs.familysearch.org, 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, unknown short title, 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, unknown short title, 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. [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.
  20. [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.

Aurelia Mary Mahnich1

F, b. 23 May 1924, d. 16 April 1999
Aurelia Mary Mahnich|b. 23 May 1924\nd. 16 Apr 1999|p210.htm#i1684|Anton Mahnich|b. 14 Jan 1894\nd. 21 Oct 1948|p210.htm#i1681|Antonia Pecuh|b. 3 Apr 1898\nd. 31 Jan 1982|p237.htm#i1682|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|Marko Pecuh|b. 24 Apr 1868\nd. 8 Nov 1914|p237.htm#i1685|Mathilde Podplatnik|b. 11 Nov 1869\nd. 26 Feb 1942|p243.htm#i1686|

  
Aurelia Mahnich Pajkurich with grandsons Frank and Daniel

Father Anton Mahnich b. 14 Jan 1894, d. 21 Oct 1948
Mother Antonia Pecuh b. 3 Apr 1898, d. 31 Jan 1982

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 
(Witness) Census8 April 1930She appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 in the household of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh at 2671 Aramingo Ave., Philadelphia, 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 
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 

Family

 Frank Anton Pajkurich
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 search.labs.familysearch.org, 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.

Gloria Frances Mahnich

F, b. October 1925, d. 23 August 2004
Gloria Frances Mahnich|b. Oct 1925\nd. 23 Aug 2004|p210.htm#i1578|Anton Mahnich|b. 14 Jan 1894\nd. 21 Oct 1948|p210.htm#i1681|Antonia Pecuh|b. 3 Apr 1898\nd. 31 Jan 1982|p237.htm#i1682|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|Marko Pecuh|b. 24 Apr 1868\nd. 8 Nov 1914|p237.htm#i1685|Mathilde Podplatnik|b. 11 Nov 1869\nd. 26 Feb 1942|p243.htm#i1686|

  
Gloria Mahnich Mrak Easter 2002
  

Father Anton Mahnich b. 14 Jan 1894, d. 21 Oct 1948
Mother Antonia Pecuh b. 3 Apr 1898, d. 31 Jan 1982

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 
(Witness) Census8 April 1930She appeared on the census of 8 April 1930 in the household of Anton Mahnich and Antonia Pecuh at 2671 Aramingo Ave., Philadelphia, 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.9 
Married Name4 September 1948 As of 4 September 1948,her married name was Mrak. 
(Witness) Death31 January 1982Gloria Frances Mahnich witnessed the death of Antonia Pecuh on 31 January 1982 at Zebrugg Memorial Hospital, Riverside, Riverside Twp., Burlington Co., New Jersey.8,10 

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. [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.
  10. [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 ).

Josef Mahnich

M

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
Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1704|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|||||||||||||

Father Josef Mahnich
Mother Josephine (?)

Josef Mahnich is the son of Josef Mahnich and Josephine (?). 

Jozefa Mahnich1

F, b. circa 1890
Jozefa Mahnich|b. c 1890|p210.htm#i8364|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|||||||||||||

Father Josef Mahnich1
Mother Josephine (?)1

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 

Family

 Anton Rencelj
Children 1.Stane Rencelj1
 2.Boris Rencelj1
 3.Justina Rencelj1
 4.Ana Rencelj1
 5.Slava Rencelj1
 6.Joze "Nado" Rencelj+1

Citations

  1. [S365] Alen Rencelj family chart.

Louise Mahnich

F
Louise Mahnich||p210.htm#i1705|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|||||||||||||

Father Josef Mahnich
Mother Josephine (?)

Louise Mahnich is the daughter of Josef Mahnich and Josephine (?). 

Thomas Mahnich1

M
Thomas Mahnich||p210.htm#i3120|Anton Mahnich|b. 14 Jan 1894\nd. 21 Oct 1948|p210.htm#i1681|Antonia Pecuh|b. 3 Apr 1898\nd. 31 Jan 1982|p237.htm#i1682|Josef Mahnich||p210.htm#i1702|Josephine (?)||p5.htm#i1703|Marko Pecuh|b. 24 Apr 1868\nd. 8 Nov 1914|p237.htm#i1685|Mathilde Podplatnik|b. 11 Nov 1869\nd. 26 Feb 1942|p243.htm#i1686|

Father Anton Mahnich1 b. 14 Jan 1894, d. 21 Oct 1948
Mother Antonia Pecuh1 b. 3 Apr 1898, d. 31 Jan 1982

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

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

Family

 Ephraim Parent Sharp

Citations

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

Margaret Malden1

F

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
Danielle Lee Maley||p210.htm#i9162|Robert Paul Maley||p210.htm#i9156|Donna Lee Webb||p307.htm#i9003|||||||Leroy M. Webb Jr.||p308.htm#i1799|Margaret M. Carr|d. b 24 Jun 2007|p68.htm#i9002|

Father Robert Paul Maley1
Mother Donna Lee Webb1

Danielle Lee Maley is the daughter of Robert Paul Maley and Donna Lee Webb.1 

Citations

  1. [S396] Webb Ancestry.

Robert Paul Maley1,2

M

Marriage*19 May 1978Robert Paul Maley married Donna Lee Webb, daughter of Leroy Meyers Webb Jr. and Margaret Mary Carr, on 19 May 1978 at Escambia, Florida.1,2 

Family

 Donna Lee Webb
Children 1.Ryan P. Maley1
 2.Danielle Lee Maley1

Citations

  1. [S396] Webb Ancestry.
  2. [S251] Unknown author, Ancestry Web Site, Ancestry.com. Florida Marriage Collection, 1822-1875 and 1927-2001 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2006. Original data:
    Florida Department of Health. Florida Marriage Index, 1927-2001. Florida Department of Health, Jacksonville, Florida.
    Marriages records from various counties located in county courthouses and/or on microfilm at the Family History Library.

Ryan P. Maley1

M
Ryan P. Maley||p210.htm#i9161|Robert Paul Maley||p210.htm#i9156|Donna Lee Webb||p307.htm#i9003|||||||Leroy M. Webb Jr.||p308.htm#i1799|Margaret M. Carr|d. b 24 Jun 2007|p68.htm#i9002|

Father Robert Paul Maley1
Mother Donna Lee Webb1

Ryan P. Maley is the son of Robert Paul Maley and Donna Lee Webb.1 

Citations

  1. [S396] Webb Ancestry.

Adeline O. Mallory

F

Note* (an unknown value).1 

Family

 Thomas Howey Jr.
Children 1.William M. Howey b. 28 Jul 1833
 2.Harriet A. Howey b. 29 Sep 1835
 3.Ann Howey b. 30 Nov 1836
 4.James Quinby Howey b. 22 Oct 1839

Citations

  1. [S101] Unknown author, International Genealogical Index.

Betsy Mallory1

F

Marriage*Betsy Mallory married Zadoc Bowen, son of Ezra Bowen and Patience Eddy.1 

Family

 Zadoc Bowen d. after 1823
Child 1.Benjamin Bowen1

Citations

  1. [S19] e-mail address.

William Mallory

M

Marriage*1 November 1831William Mallory married Lucretia Howey, daughter of Thomas Howey and Lodema Harris, on 1 November 1831 at of Dansville, New York. 
Note* (an unknown value).1 

Family

 Lucretia Howey b. circa 1803

Citations

  1. [S101] Unknown author, International Genealogical Index.

Allison Bailey Malloy1

F
Allison Bailey Malloy||p210.htm#i4647|John Breen Malloy|b. 13 Jul 1921\nd. 3 Sep 1978|p210.htm#i4645|Verna Mary Bailey||p29.htm#i4589|||||||Paul B. Bailey Sr.||p28.htm#i4587|Alice G. Sharp|b. 2 Jul 1905\nd. 1968|p259.htm#i4580|

Father John Breen Malloy b. 13 Jul 1921, d. 3 Sep 1978
Mother Verna Mary Bailey

Allison Bailey Malloy is the daughter of John Breen Malloy and Verna Mary Bailey. 

Citations

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

John Breen Malloy1

M, b. 13 July 1921, d. 3 September 1978

Marriage*John Breen Malloy married Verna Mary Bailey, daughter of Paul Boyd Bailey Sr. and Alice Gates Sharp. 
Baptism1921John Breen Malloy was baptized in 1921 at Boston, Massachusetts.1 
Birth*13 July 1921He was born on 13 July 1921 at Boston, Massachusetts.1 
Death*3 September 1978He died on 3 September 1978 at Falmouth, Massachusetts, at age 57.1 
Reference*Reference: 3638. 

Family

 Verna Mary Bailey
Children 1.Priscilla Breen Malloy
 2.Allison Bailey Malloy
 3.John James Malloy
 4.Stephanie Sharp Malloy

Citations

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

John James Malloy1

M
John James Malloy||p210.htm#i4648|John Breen Malloy|b. 13 Jul 1921\nd. 3 Sep 1978|p210.htm#i4645|Verna Mary Bailey||p29.htm#i4589|||||||Paul B. Bailey Sr.||p28.htm#i4587|Alice G. Sharp|b. 2 Jul 1905\nd. 1968|p259.htm#i4580|

Father John Breen Malloy b. 13 Jul 1921, d. 3 Sep 1978
Mother Verna Mary Bailey

John James Malloy is the son of John Breen Malloy and Verna Mary Bailey. 
Marriage*John James Malloy married Robin Slapin. 

Family

 Robin Slapin

Citations

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