St. Louis, Iron Mountain & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Paul
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Fuller
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Writ of error to Arkansas Supreme Court; lower court judgment affirmed on appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Charles Paul recovered $21.80 in unpaid wages plus penalty damages from the railroad company. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, rejecting the employer's constitutional challenge to the protective labor statute.
Excerpt
<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
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
<p>Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Del. Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 49, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Edgar B. Millert v. Augustinian College of Villanova.</p> <p>Assumpsit to recover for breach of a contract of employment. Before Johnson, P. J.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.</p> <p>Plaintiff presented the following points:</p> <p>16. If you find for the plaintiff, the measure of damages will be the sum stipulated in the agreement, with interest from the date of discharge to the date of the expiration of the contract.</p> <p>The Court: Was he entitled to all of it at that time?</p> <p>Mr. Bradbury: I understand that to be the law here, with interest.</p> <p>The Court: He was to be paid monthly?</p> <p>Mr. Bradbury: I may not be clear on that.</p> <p>The Court: I am not inclined to affirm that. I think I will say to you, gentlemen, that if you find for the plaintiff he will be entitled to the monthly pay which he was to receive and interest from the date at which they were due until the date cf your verdict. Not entitled to interest due, but that you may allow him anything up to six per cent for its detention. Not interest, as we said a moment ago. That was a slip. But you may allow him anything up to six per cent by way of its detention. [1]</p> <p>17. It is admitted that the plaintiff was to receive $900 for the school year of nine months, and was to board himself outside of the institution. He has- received $140, so that the amount of your verdict will be the difference between $140 he received and $900, which is $760, with interest on same. Answer: That is affirmed if you find for the plaintiff. [2]</p> <p>Defendant presented this point:</p> <p>1. The acceptance of the check of November 19, 1904, marked “in full,” is to be treated as an accord and satisfaction, and there can be no recovery in this case. Answer: This is refused. That is a question for the jury under all the evidence. That poi
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.
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.