Millert v. Augustinian College

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.</p> <p>This action was commenced in a justice’s court in Saline Township, Saline County, Arkansas, by Charles Paul against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas, and owning and operating a railroad within that State, to recover $21.80 due him as a laborer, and a penalty of $1.25 per day for failure to pay him what was due him when he was discharged. The case, was carried by appeal to the Circuit Court of. Saline County and there tried de novo. Defendant demurred to so much of the complaint as sought. to recover the penalty on the ground that the act of the general assembly of Arkansas entitled “ An act to provide for the protection of servants and employés of railroads,” approved March 25,. ,1889, Acts Ark. 1889, 76, which provided therefor, was in violation of articles five and fourteen of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and also in violation of the constitution of the State of Arkansas. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant answered, setting up certain matters not material here, and reiterating in its third paragraph the objection that the act was unconstitutional and void. To this paragraph plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was sustainéd. The case was then heard by the court, the parties, having. waived a trial by jury, and the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum claimed and the penalty at the rate of daily wages from the daté of the discharge until the date of the commencement of the suit, and entered judgment accordingly. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, which affirmed the judgment, 64 Arkansas, 83, and this writ of error was then brought. .</p> <p>The act-in question is as follows:</p> <p>“ SectioN 1. Whenever any railroad company or any company, corporation or person engaged in the business of operating or constructing any railroa

<p>Appeal, No. 93, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Butler Co., March T., 1907, No. 25, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Joseph W. Foringer v. New Kensington Stone Company.</p> <p>■ Assumpsit to recover for breach of a contract of employment. Before Galbreath, P. J.</p> <p>The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.</p> <p>Defendant presented the following points:</p> <p>2. A party seeking compensation from a corporation, under a contract made with an officer of the corporation, for a breach of the contract and not for services actually rendered the cor- • poration, must not only establish the contract, but must also establish the authority of the said officer to make the contract. Answer: Under the facts in this case, this point is denied. [1]</p> <p>5. If the jury should find that the contract of hiring was for the term of three years, and the plaintiff discharged without sufficient cause, the measure of damages in this action could not be greater than the plaintiff’s salary under the contract from December 1, 1906, the time bringing this action, less what he may have earned or could reasonably have earned during that period. Answer: This point is refused. [2]</p> <p>6. Under all the evidence in this case, the verdict must be for the defendant. Answer: Refused. [3]</p> <p>Plaintiff presented this point:</p> <p>The court is respectfully requested to say to the jury that if they find the defendant company contracted with the plaintiff for his services for the period of three years and discharged him without just cause before the expiration of the term, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount he would have received had he remained with the defendant for the full term, and in this case the defendant company is not entitled to any credit or mitigation of damages by reason of any money the plaintiff earned or may have earned of other labor of a different nature from that he had engaged to perform. Answer: This point is affirm

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with entire six months stayed—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Failing to carry out contract of employment—Intentionally prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship.

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Twenty-four-month suspension with final eighteen months of suspension stayed on condition—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Entering into an agreement for, charging, or collecting a clearly excessive fee—Failing to carry out contract of employment—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.