Skip to main content

Hershey v. Metzgar & Krug

Unknown CourtMay 26, 1879Cited 3 times
Defendant WinBurroughs Corporation
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gordon, Mercur, Paxson, Sharswood, Sterrett, Trunicey, Trunkey, Woodward
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Constructive Discharge

Outcome

The court affirmed the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's denial of benefits, holding that the claimant voluntarily quit her employment without necessitous or compelling cause and failed to meet her burden of proof.

Excerpt

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Yorlc county: Of May Term 1879, No. 114. Trover and conversion by F. E. Metzgar and Rufus Krug against John M. Hershey, Henry Swartz and George T. Forrey. The defendants pleaded “not guilty.” In 1870 Forrey purchased from Metzgar and Krug, a farm in York county, and gave to them, in part payment of purchase-money, a judgment-note for $4000. A writ of fi. fa. was issued to January Term 1874, and all the defendant’s stock of horses, cattle, farming implements and grain in the ground, and also the real estate, were levied upon. When the sheriff came with his writ, the defendant claimed the benefit of the exemption law, demanded an appraisement of $300 worth of personal property, and elected to take one field of wheat growing in the ground and one field, partly wheat and partly rye, growing in the ground, as part of his exemption. These growing crops had been levied on under the fi. fa., and they were appraised by the appraisers summoned by the sheriff, and set apart to him. Krug, one of the plaintiffs, was present and made no objection, nor was any motion made afterwards in court to set aside the appraisement. All the grain growing on the premises was levied upon as personal property, and the remaining field of wheat, not taken by Forrey, was sold at the sale of the personal property. After the condemnation of the real estate, a venditioni was issued and the real estate was sold to Metzgar and Krug.for $4000, the amount of their judgment as entered. When in the following summer, Forrey went to cut his wheat and rye, he was met by the claim of Metzgar and Krug, to the growing grain, which had been appraised to them. Nevertheless, along with Hershey and Swartz, Forrey cut the grain and removed it from the premises. The plaintiffs below then brought this suit to recover the value, alleging that the grain passed to them by the sale of the land. At the trial, before Eisher, P. J., the plaintiffs submitted the fol

What This Ruling Means

# Hershey v. Metzgar & Krug (1879) ## What Happened John Hershey and two other defendants were involved in a property dispute with F.E. Metzgar and Rufus Krug over a farm sale in York County. The case centered on a farm purchase made in 1870, where a partial payment was made through a judgment note for $4,000. The legal disagreement involved property claims and collection efforts related to this transaction. ## What the Court Decided The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Hershey, Swartz, and Forrey), finding them not guilty of the conversion and property claims brought against them. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case established an important precedent: workers who voluntarily leave their jobs without strong, justifiable reasons cannot receive unemployment benefits. The ruling clarified that simply citing inadequate training or personal stress is insufficient grounds for quitting without losing benefits. Workers must have genuine, compelling reasons—called "necessitous" reasons—to resign and still qualify for unemployment compensation. This remains relevant today, as workers should understand that leaving employment voluntarily can affect their eligibility for benefits.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Constructive Discharge cases

Similar Rulings

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAY PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
4th CircuitMar 1992
Defendant Win
Jorge VEGA and Eusebio Leon, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. KODAK CARIBBEAN, LTD., Defendant, Appellee
1st CircuitAug 1993
Defendant Win
Yasharay Mack v. Otis Elevator Company and Local 1 International Union of Elevator Constructors
2nd CircuitApr 2003
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Central Wholesalers, Inc.
4th CircuitJul 2009
Mixed Result
James Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank, F.S.B., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Supporting
4th CircuitJan 2006
Mixed Result
Read Full OpinionMore Burroughs Corporation RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More rulings from PennsylvaniaMore constructive discharge casesMore technology employer cases

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.