Aguilar, 318 U.S. at 735, 63 S.Ct. at 936. It is for this reason that a certain expansiveness rightfully attends determinations of whether a person is a seaman in service of the ship. To cite one example, we recently ruled that a sailor injured at home on a Sunday was entitled to maintenance and cure although his ship was not due to sail until the following Tuesday, observing that “the captain could have changed his mind and decided to sail Monday and required plaintiff to do the preparatory boat work Sunday, holiday or not.” Macedo, 868 F.2d at 520-21. As this illustration makes clear, if a person is enduring circumstances which, in a rather general sense, further the ship’s purposes, he may well be deemed in the ship’s service. Accord Farrell, 336 U.S. at 516, 69 S.Ct. at 709-10 (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court’s most recent visit to
holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that a seaman is in the ships service when he is generally answerable to the call of duty holding that a seaman is entitled to maintenance and cure even if he falls ill or is injured while ashore as long as he is subject to the call of duty holding that the burden of proving seaman status is on the party claiming benefits therefrom recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act