Murtland v. Floyd

Unknown CourtJanuary 3, 1893Cited 6 times

Case Details

Judge(s): Green, Heydbick, Heydrick, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Williams
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal
State: Pennsylvania

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's dismissal of the petitioner's request to include equipment rental payments in calculating his average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits.

Excerpt

Appeal, No. 278, Oct. T., 1892, by Joseph Walton, from order of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1892, No. 6, entering judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence in favor of John A. Murtland, administrator. Assumpsit to recover the amount of a deposit. From the record it appeared that the action was brought against Joseph Walton and a large number of other defendants, who were alleged to be “ late partners doing business under the name and style of the American Bank.” Walton filed an affidavit of defence, .but several of the defendants neither filed an affidavit of defence, nor had an appearance entered for them of record. The court entered judgment against Walton for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, but no judgment was entered against the other defendants. Error assigned was, in ordering judgment to be entered against appellant in default of sufficient affidavit of defence when it appears from the record that there the action is a joint one, and no disposition whatever is made of the case against the other defendants.

What This Ruling Means

**Murtland v. Floyd (1893)** This case involved a dispute over money that a worker claimed he was owed. Joseph Walton and other defendants, who were business partners operating under the name "American," were sued by John A. Murtland for what appears to be unpaid wages or deposits. The case went through the court system as an appeal, meaning one side disagreed with a lower court's decision and asked a higher court to review it. **What the Court Decided:** The court ruled against the worker and in favor of the employer defendants. The court determined that equipment rental payments did not qualify as wages under Pennsylvania law. Additionally, the court found that the worker failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim was correct. The defendants won the case, and no damages were awarded to the worker. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This 1893 ruling established an important distinction between actual wages and other types of payments like equipment rentals. For modern workers, this means that not all money received from an employer counts as "wages" under the law. Workers need to understand what payments qualify as wages versus other compensation, as this affects their legal rights. The case also shows that workers must provide strong evidence when challenging employers over pay disputes.

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

Read Full Opinion More Frank D. Suppa Logging Rulings All Rulings

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 Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.