Ashenford v. L. Yukon & Sons Produce Co.

• Citation: 172 S.W.2d 881,237 Mo.App. 1241
• Parties: John Ashenford, Respondent, v. L. Yukon & Sons Produce Company, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant
• Decision Date: 03 May 1943
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

172 S.W.2d 881

237 Mo.App. 1241

John Ashenford, Respondent, v. L. Yukon & Sons Produce Company, Inc., a Corporation, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 3, 1943

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County; Hon. Brown Harris Judge.

James P. Aylward, Ralph M. Russell and Francis M Cook for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing to give defendant's requested peremptory instruction in the nature of demurrer to the evidence at the close of plaintiff's evidence in that (a) the petition failed to allege that plaintiff was an employee "engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce," within the meaning of the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," secs. 206 and 207, Title 29, U.S.C. A. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, secs. 206, 207, and 216, Title 29, U.S.C. A.; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall (U.S. Sup.), 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 99; Ikola v. Snoqualmie Falls Lbr. Co. (Wash.), 121 P.2d 369; Foster v. National Biscuit Co., 31 F.Supp. 552; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 124 F.2d 172; Maddox v. Jones, 42 F.Supp. 35, 39; Preston v. Louis Des. Cognetz & Co. (Ky.), 167 S.W.2d 863, 864. (b) Plaintiff utterly failed to prove a case under the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," secs. 201-219, Title 29, U.S.C. A. Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams (C. C. A. 10), 118 F.2d 202, 207; Ansel Higgins v. Carr Brothers Co., (U.S. Sup.), 87 L.Ed. 398; Warren-Bradshaw v. Hall (U.S. Sup.), 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 99, 100; Jones et al. v. Springfield, Mo., Packing Co. (D. C. Mo.), 45 F.Supp. 997; Ralston v. Karp Metal Products, 38 N.Y.S. (2d) 764; Super-Cold Southwest Co. v. McBride (5 C. C. A.), 124 F.2d 90; Silgaro v. Port Compress Co. (D. C. Tex.), 45 F.Supp. 88, 91; Snavely et al. v. Shugart (D. C. Tex.), 45 F.Supp. 722. (2) The court erred in refusing, upon defendant's motion, to make H. Winer Produce Company, and others, parties defendant in the cause. Sec. 972, R. S. Mo. 1939; McKee v. Downing, 224 Mo. 115, 130; Butler v. Lawson, 72 Mo. 147; Seay v. Sanders, 88 Mo.App. 478; State ex rel. Ely v. Bandall, 220 Mo.App. 1222, 1228. (3) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 1. State ex rel. Grisham v. Allen, 344 Mo. 66, 71, 124 S.W.2d 1080; Stanich v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Mo.), 153 S.W.2d 54, 56; Dugdale Packing Co. v. Lowden, 160 S.W.2d 832; Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, secs. 206-207, Title 29, U.S.C. A.; Gibson v. Glasgow (Tenn.), 157 S.W.2d 814; Fleming v. Goldblatt Bros. (D. C. Ill.), 39 F.Supp. 701; Corbett v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corporation (D. C. Tex.), 43 F.Supp. 605; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 124 F.2d 172; Super-Cold Southwest Co. v. McBride (5 Cir.), 124 F.2d 90; Foster v. National Biscuit Co. (D. C. Wash.), 31 F.Supp. 552. (4) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 2. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title 29, U.S.C. A., secs. 201-219; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall (U.S. Sup.), 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 99; Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams (C. C. A. 10), 118 F.2d 202; Fleming v. Goldblatt, 39 F.Supp. 701; Preston v. Louis Des. Cognetz & Co. (Ky.), 167 S.W.2d 863 864. (5) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 3. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, secs. 206 and 207; Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title 29, U.S.C. A., secs, 201, 219. (6) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 4. Sec. 216, Title 29, U.S.C. A.; Robinson v. Larue (Tenn.), 156 S.W.2d 432; Niehaus v. Greenspon's Son Pipe Corp (Mo. App.), 164 S.W.2d 180; Divine v. Levy, 45 F.Supp. 49. (7) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 5. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Title 29, U.S.C. A., secs. 201-219. (8) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 6. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, secs. 206, 207, 216, Title 29, U.S.C. A. (9) The court erred in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. 7. (10) The court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict because it was not responsive to the issues or the evidence. Witty v. Saling (Mo. App.), 154 S.W. 421; Weisels-Gerhardt Real Estate Co. v. Pemberton Inv. Co. (Mo. App.), 131 S.W. 353; Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, sec. 216. (11) The verdict is excessive. Niehaus v. Greenspon's Sons Pipe Corp. (Mo. App.), 164 S.W.2d 180; Robinson v. Larue (Tenn.), 156 S.W.2d 432; Gibler v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 203 Mo. 208, 224; Shafer v. Harvey, 192 Mo.App. 502; Walters v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 165 Mo.App. 628; Williams v. East St. Louis Ry. Co. (Mo. App.), 100 S.W.2d 51.

Jeter & Earhart and A. P. Leacy for respondent.

(1) The court did not err in refusing to give appellant's requested peremptory instruction in the nature of demurrer to the evidence at the close of respondent's evidence in that (a) The petition sufficiently alleges that respondent was an employee "engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce" within the meaning of the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," secs. 203, 206 and 207, Title 29, U.S.C. A.; 29 U.S.C. A. 203 (b), (g), (j), (k); Fleming v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 128 F.2d 395, 87 L.Ed. 393; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 87 L.Ed. 99; United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 85 L.Ed. 619, 61 S.Ct. 451; Kirschbaum v. Walling, 86 L.Ed. 1638, 316 U.S. 517; Niehaus v. Joseph Greenspon's Son Pipe Corp., 164 S.W.2d 180; Abrol v. Lindsay Bros. Co. (Minn.), 300 N.W. 457; Atkocus v. Terker, 30 N.Y.S. (2d) 628; Doyle v. Johnson Bros. Inc., 28 N.Y.S. (2d) 452; Hart v. Gregory, 10 S.E.2d 644, 218 N.C. 184; Lefevers v. General Export Iron & Metal Co., 36 F.Supp. 838; Wood v. Central Sand & Gravel Co., 33 F.Supp. 40; Holland v. Amoskeag Mach. Co., 44 F.Supp. 884; 29 U.S.C. A. 206, 207, 216; Pliner v. Nesvig, 42 F.Supp. 297. (b) The respondent proved a case under the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938", secs. 201-219, Title 29, U.S.C. A., Walling v. Peoples Packing Co., 132 F.2d 236; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 87 L.Ed. 99; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 87 L.Ed. 393; Kirschbaum v. Walling, 86 L.Ed. 1638, 316 U.S. 517; Niehaus v. Joseph Greenspon's Son Pipe Corp., 164 S.W.2d 180; Lefevers v. General Export Iron & Metal Co., 36 F.Supp. 838; Fleming v. Arsenal Building Corp., 125 F.2d 278, 86 L.Ed. 1638, 316 U.S. 517; Walling v. Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co., 36 F.Supp. 939. (2) Appellant's motion to make H. Winer Produce Co. and others parties defendant in the cause was properly overruled. Essen v. Adams, 342 Mo. 1196, 119 S.W.2d 773; Barnard v. Keathley, 230 Mo. 209, 730 S.W. 306; National Handle Co. v. Huffman, 140 Mo.App. 634, 120 S.W. 690. (3) The court did not err in giving respondent's requested Instruction No. 1. 29 U.S.C. A., 206 (a), (1), (2), 207 (a), (1), (2), (3), 216 (2); Macklin v. Fogel Construction Co., 31 S.W.2d 15; J. E. Stewart Prod. Co. v. Gamble-Robinson Com. Co., 189 Mo.App. 654, 175 S.W. 319; Chapman v. Brown, 192 Mo.App. 78, 179 S.W. 774. (4) The court did not err in giving respondent's requested Instruction No. 2. 29 U.S.C. A. 203 (e); Barnard v. Waverly Brick & Coal Co., 189 Mo.App. 419, 176 S.W. 1108; Lange v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 208 Mo. 458, 106 S.W. 660; Wingfield v. Wabash R. Co., 257 Mo. 347, 166 S.W. 1037. (5) The court did not err in giving respondent's requested Instruction No. 3. 29 U.S.C. A. 216 (b); Overnight Motor Transp. Co. v. Misel, 86 L.Ed. 1682, 316 U.S. 572; St. John et al. v. Brown et al., 38 F.Supp. 385; McGann v. Long's Baggage Transfer, 39 F.Supp. 742; Thompson v. Daugherty, 40 F.Supp. 279. (6) The court did not err in giving respondent's requested Instruction No. 4. 29 U.S.C. A. 216; Acme Lumber Co. v. Shaw, 10 So.2d 285. (7) The court did not err in giving respondents requested Instruction No. 5. Wage & Hour Bureau, Interpretative Bulletin 13; Woods v. Wilkerson, 40 F.Supp. 131. (8) The court did not err in giving respondent's requested Instruction No. 6. 29 U.S.C. A. 203 (g). (9) The court did not err in giving respondent's requested Instruction No. 7. (10) The court did not err in refusing to set aside the verdict on appellant's motion for new trial. Witty v. Saling, 154 S.W. 421; Weisels-Gerhardt Real Estate Co. v. Pemberton Inv. Co., 131 S.W. 353; Cable v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 233 Mo.App. 1093, 128 S.W.2d 1123; Wilson v. Buchanan County, 318 Mo. 64, 298 S.W. 842. (11) The verdict is not excessive. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 87 L.Ed. 393; Sykes v. Lochmann, 156 Kan. 223; Niehaus v. Joseph Greenspon's Son Pipe Corp., 164 S.W.2d 180.

OPINION

Cave, J.

This is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. A., secs. 201-219. The petition was in three counts; the first for unpaid minimum wages and othertime; the second for liquidated damages, and the third for attorney's fee. The cause was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the aggregate sum of $ 4000, divded as follows: $ 1500 on the first count, $ 1500 on the second count, and $ 1000 attorney's fee on the third count. Defendant perfected its appeal to this court.

There are seventeen assignments of error, but we will consider only those which are carried forward under points and authorities and in the argument; the others are considered abandoned. [Clay v. Owen, 338 Mo. 1061.]

Defendant (appellant) first charges that the petition failed to state a cause of action because it "failed to allege that plaintiff was an employee 'engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce', within the meaning of the 'Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.'". A cause of action of this nature is purely statutory, and the allegations of the petition and the proof must substantially bring the plaintiff within the purview of the statute.

In brief, the first count of the petition alleged that defendant is engaged, in the State of Missouri and...