Bros. v. Theodore Wolfley

• Decision Date: 01 January 1896
• Docket Number: 7931
• Citation: 43 P. 236,56 Kan. 281
• Parties: CAWOOD BROS. v. THEODORE WOLFLEY, as Administrator of the Estate of N. Morris, deceased
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

43 P. 236

56 Kan. 281

CAWOOD BROS. v. THEODORE WOLFLEY, as Administrator of the Estate of N. Morris, deceased

No. 7931

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 1, 1896

Error from Nemaha District Court.

PROCEEDINGS by G. F. Cawood and Charles Cawood, partners as Cawood Bros against Theodore Wolfley, as administrator of the estate of N. Morris, deceased, to enforce a claim against said estate. Plaintiffs had been clerks in the store of the deceased. On September 22, 1891, judgment was rendered for plaintiffs for $ 2,745.04, and graded as fifth class. They complain of the judgment rendered, and bring it here for review.

Dismissed.

Wells & Wells, for plaintiffs in error.

Samuel K. Woodworth, for defendant in error.

ALLEN J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

ALLEN J.:

The sole question presented by the record in this case is whether, in the classification of demands against the estate of a deceased person, the wages of a clerk employed by the decedent in his store for a period prior to his last illness are to be included, under the provisions of section 80, chapter 37, of the General Statutes of 1889, in the second class. The first part of the section reads as follows:

"All demands against the estate of any deceased person shall be divided into the following classes: First, funeral expenses; second, expenses of the last sickness, wages of servants, and demands for medicines and medical attendance during the last sickness of the deceased, and the expenses of administration."

Is a clerk a servant within the meaning of this language, and, if so, are the wages confined to those accruing during the last illness of the deceased? No direct authority is cited or known to us on the question. The legislature in more than one enactment has manifested a purpose to secure to all wage-earners their hire, and to prefer their claims to those of most other creditors. It is conceded that the term "servant" in its usual acceptation, especially in the law, is broad enough to include a clerk; but it is argued that the word is here used in a restricted sense, and means only menial or household servants. We are loth to recognize any such classification in Kansas as menial servants. The word is broad enough to include a clerk, and we think the legislature intended it should do so. Nor do we think the wages referred to are limited to those earned during the last illness of the deceased. In this particular case the...