Baker City Mercantile Co. v. Idaho Cement Pipe Co.

Unknown CourtNovember 11, 1913Cited 9 times

Plaintiff Win$15,000 awarded

Case Details

Judge(s): Bean
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal
State: Illinois

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Appellate court affirmed jury verdict for an injured employee who lost an arm and leg while uncoupling train cars due to negligent orders from the train dispatcher and a negligent motorman.

Excerpt

From Baker: Gustav Anderson, Judge. En Bane. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by the Baker City Mercantile Company, a corporation, against the Idaho Glazed Cement Pipe Company, a corporation, for the recovery of the value of goods, wares and merchandise furnished by the plaintiff and its assignors in the furtherance of the construction of a pipe-line by the defendant for the City of Baker. The cause was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the following sums, to wit: For the claim of Baker City Mercantile Co. .$ 838 10 For Perkins Bros.’ claim assigned to plaintiff................................ 37 65 For Oregon Mill & Grain Co. ’s claim assigned to plaintiff.......................... 109 42 For the claim of M. Weil & Co. assigned to plaintiff............................ 29 20 For the claim of Baker City Packing Co. assigned to plaintiff.................... 623 55 Total..........................$1,637 92 From a judgment entered thereon, defendant appeals. The complaint declares upon five separate causes of action. For the first plaintiff alleges that the defendant entered into a contract with the City of Baker, a municipal corporation of Oregon, to construct a conduit in connection with the gravity water system of such city, and employed men to do the manual labor in the construction thereof at an agreed price; that while these men were so employed, the defendant, by J. A. Atchison, bought goods of plaintiff of the reasonable value of $840.10 for the use of the laborers; that it was stipulated and agreed between plaintiff and defendant that the latter would hold, out of the wages of the laborers employed in the construction of the conduit, sufficient to pay the aforesaid sum; that in compliance therewith defendant, in the settlement with such laborers, with their consent did withhold such sum for the use and benefit of plaintiff, and now holds

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Baker City Mercantile Company sued Idaho Glazed Cement Pipe Company over unpaid bills for goods and supplies. The mercantile company had provided materials to help Idaho Cement Pipe build a pipeline for the City of Baker. When the pipe company failed to pay for these supplies, Baker City Mercantile took them to court seeking payment for the goods they had delivered. **What the Court Decided:** The court sided with Baker City Mercantile Company. A jury heard the case and ruled in favor of the mercantile company, meaning Idaho Cement Pipe Company was required to pay for the goods and materials they had received. The court found that the pipe company owed money for the supplies that were used in their construction project. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This 1913 case demonstrates an important principle that still protects workers today: companies must pay their bills and fulfill their financial obligations. When businesses fail to pay suppliers or contractors, it can create a chain reaction that hurts workers—from unpaid wages to job losses. Court decisions like this help ensure that companies are held accountable for their debts, which helps maintain stable business relationships and protects the livelihoods of workers throughout the supply chain.

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

Read Full Opinion 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.