Luther v. Saylor

Decision Date02 March 1880
Citation8 Mo.App. 424
PartiesAUGUST F. LUTHER, Appellant, v. O. P. SAYLOR, ASSIGNEE, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

1. The statute giving a preference to the wages of labor over other claims not covered by a specific lien is not unconstitutional.

2. The act applies to all business corporations, and is not special legislation within the meaning of the Constitution.

3. The act does not impair the obligation of contracts because it incidentally lessens the fund for the payment of general creditors.

4. That the rate of interest is fixed from a stated period, without demand, is not an objection.

5. A title not adapted to deceive, and which fairly expresses the subject of the act, is sufficient.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

Reversed and remanded.

NOBLE & ORRICK, for the appellant: Laws are presumed to be constitutional unless they manifestly infringe some provision of the Constitution.-- The State v. Railroad Co., 48 Mo. 468. A law may be said to be general when it operates uniformly upon all persons who are brought within the relations and circumstances provided for by it.--20 Iowa, 338. Courts will give effect, if possible, to every clause of the statute--all the parts to harmonize with each other.-- Brooks v. School, 31 Ala. 277; San Francisco v. Hazler, 5 Cal. 169; Cochran v. Taylor, 13 Ohio St. 382. Acts which afford more ample and surer remedies to laborers for securing the fruits of their labor are remedial, and should be liberally sustained.-- Peters v. Railroad Co., 23 Mo. 110; The State v. Shaffer, 38 Iowa, 324; Raeder v. Bensberg, 6 Mo. App. 445. The act under consideration affects all business corporations.-- Gould v. Sub-district, 7 Minn. 203; Queen v. Edmonson, 2 El. & El. 75; The State v. Bentley, 60 Mo. 222; Smith v. Railroad Co., 61 Mo. 17; City v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 564.

JACOB KLEIN, for the respondent: The legislative act under consideration is unconstitutional, because unequal in its provisions.-- Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Cooley's Const. Lim. 393; Wally v. Kennedy, 2 Yerg. 554; Officer v. Young, 5 Yerg. 320. It is a special act within the meaning of the Constitution.--Smith on Stat. & Const. Law, sects. 795, 802; 1 Bla. Comm. 86; Sedgw. on Stat. & Const. Law, 24; Potter's Dwar. on Stats. 52; In re Railroad Co., 3 Abb. N. C. 422; Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 162; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366; Wheeling v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 348; The State v. Walbridge, 3 Mo. App. 561. The title of the act is deceptive, and does not clearly express the subject of the act.-- Walker v. Coldwell, 4 La. An. 297; Robinson v. Skipworth, 23 Ind. 311, 317; The People v. Commissioners of Highways, 53 Barb. 70; The People v. Common Council, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 121; The State v. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 524, 525; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 193, 195; Alleghany County Home's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 80; State Line, etc., R. Co.'s Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 429-431; IndianaCentral R. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; The State v. Harrison, 11 La. An. 725; Fishkill v. Plank-road Co., 22 Barb. 634; Rader v. Union Township, 39 N. J. L. 509; Durkee v. City of Janesville, 26 Wis. 697. The act impairs the obligation of contracts.-- Gunn v. Barrow, 15 Wall. 610; Edwards v. Kearzy, 6 Otto, 595. The act applies only to railroad companies, and the words “other corporations” cannot enlarge the scope of the specific prior designation.-- Sandiman v. Breach, 7 Barn. & Cress. 96; Barnwell v. Pennock, 7 Barn. & Cress. 536; Kitchen v. Shaw, 1 Nev. & P. 794, 795; Williams v. Golding, L. R. 1 C. P. 69; The State v. Pemberton, 30 Mo. 376; Laughlin v. City of St. Louis, 49 Mo. 559; Butler's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 448; The State v. Stoller, 38 Iowa, 321; White v. Ivy, 34 Ga. 186; Torrence v. McDougald, 12 Ga. 526, 530; The State v. McGarry, 21 Wis. 496; Lucas v. Payne, 7 Cal. 96; Livermore v. Freeholders, 5 Dutch. 247; Livermore v. Freeholders, 31 N. J. L. 508; Craft v. Smith, 35 N. J. L. 306.

HAYDEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes up on an agreed statement of facts, the substance of which is as follows: A. K. Halteman & Co., a corporation, had made an assignment, under the statute, to the respondent, before whom, as assignee, the appellant, a machinist, presented a claim for wages earned from February 1, 1878, to April 1, 1878, with interest. The corporation, which was organized under the act as to manufacturing and business companies, was in August, 1877, indebted to the amount of $10,000, on notes, etc., which amount was due at the time of the assignment, and for which demands were allowed. The plaintiff claimed priority under the statute discussed below, but the assignee allowed the demand here in question without priority, and the trial court sustained his decision. The plaintiff appealed.

The act of April 23, 1877 (Sess. Acts 1877, p. 348) is as follows:--

“An act to better secure the wages of laborers and operatives.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:--

Section 1. All railroad companies and other corporations shall make payment to their employees and other operatives, of the wages due for all labor and services performed by them within three months next preceding a demand made therefor, not exceeding sixty dollars, in preference to any other claim, debts, or demands whatsoever, not secured by specific liens on property, and such priority of payment to be enforced by civil action; payments of wages shall be made on or before the fifteenth day of each month, for the full amount of all wages earned previous to the first day of that month, with interest at six per cent, if not paid, to be added to the amount of said wages when paid or recovered by suit. All debts due employees or operatives for wages of their labor shall have priority of payment from the money and assets of the corporations in the hands of officers or agents, or of any receiver or assignee, over every other claim not specifically secured. Every corporation, officer, agent, receiver, assignee, or person holding money or assets, refusing to recognize the priority of employees' claims shall be liable to such employees for the amount of all loss and damages occasioned by his unlawfully withholding the money.

Sect. 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.”

It is first objected that this law is unconstitutional because it is unequal and discriminates in favor of and against particular persons or bodies, giving advantages to a class which are denied to others. But the act clearly applies in the first place to all business corporations, and railroad com panies are merely put in as an example, but not as necessarily limiting the signification. The question is of the reason of the law, not of its wording merely, and the reason applies to all business companies as well as to railroad corporations. To apply the rule ejusdem generis there must be a genus specially indicated by the leading word, and here is none save commercial corporations generally. This construction is confirmed by the recent revision, which, to avoid any doubt as to the intent, has the words, expressing the same meaning still more plainly, “all corporations shall make payment,” etc. Rev. Stats. 1879, sect. 761.

Thus, the section refers to all business or commercial corporations; and so, on the other hand, it refers to employees or operatives to whom are due wages for their labor within the provisions of the statute. It is undeniable that two classes are here referred to; but a great part of legislation proceeds upon the basis of peculiarities existing in classes. Corporations have peculiarities upon which legislation may well be based. Under the Constitution of this State, dues from private corporations “shall be secured by such means as may be prescribed by law; but in no case shall any stockholder be individually liable in any amount over or above the amount of stock owned by him or her.” Const. 1875, Art. XII., sect. 9. In the case of a hiring by a person or partnership, the operative has an individual or individuals to whom he may look, and the security thus arising. In the case of a corporation there is practically no such liability. The corporation is or may be the centre of a great power, and the form under which the business is done often puts impediments in the way of the collection of debts, especially of small debts, such as those due to operatives. The present law, so far from being unequal, is an attempt to remedy the inequality arising out of peculiarities in corporations, and in the demands for small sums for wages, upon which the working classes depend for their living. An essential distinction exists between such demands and those of the general creditor, which distinction may well be the basis of legislation in reference to business that is carried on under the corporate form. This was recognized by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Murnane v. The City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1894
    ... ... companies ( Equitable, etc., Society v. Clements , ... 1891, 140 U.S. 226, 35 L.Ed. 497, 11 S.Ct. 822), and many ... lines of business ( Luther v. Saylor , 1880, 8 Mo.App ... 424; Durant v. Mining Co. , 1889, 97 Mo. 62, 10 S.W ... 484) have been upheld ... ...
  • Murnane v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1894
    ...15 S. W. 320), insurance companies (Society v. Clemens [1891] 140 U. S. 226, 11 Sup. Ct. 822), and many lines of business (Luther v. Saylor [1880] 8 Mo. App. 424; Durant v. Mining Co. [1889] 97 Mo. 62, 10 S. W. 484), have been upheld. Classification of this sort is natural and reasonable, a......
  • State v. Kring
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1881
    ...calculated to deceive, and fairly gives notice of the subject. Nor can it be said that the act connects incongruous subjects. Luther v. Saylor, 8 Mo.App. 424; State to use v. Aubuchon, 8 Mo.App. 325. Nor can we see that a more general law could have been made applicable to the case Laws adv......
  • State v. Kring
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1881
    ...calculated to deceive, and fairly gives notice of the subject. Nor can it be said that the act connects incongruous subjects. Luther v. Saylor, 8 Mo. App. 424; The State to use v. Aubuchon, 8 Mo. App. 325. Nor can we see that a more general law could have been made applicable to the case La......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT