Clark v. State

• Citation: 36 N.E. 817,142 N.Y. 101
• Parties: CLARK v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 10 April 1894
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

142 N.Y. 101

36 N.E. 817

CLARK

v.STATE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 10, 1894.

Appeal from board of claims.

Claim by Samuel P. Clark against the state of New York. From an award allowing the claim, the state appeals. Affirmed.

T. E. Hancock, Atty. Gen., for the State.

J. O. McMahon, for respondent.

O'BRIEN, J.

The board of claims have made an award in this case in favor of the claimant, based upon the following facts: The claimant was employed by the superintendent of public works during the season of navigation, from May 1st to November 1st in the year 1889, as a lock tender on the canal. No express agreement was made as to compensation, but payment was made monthly, during the six months of his employment, at the rate of $20 per month. This seems to have been the compensation theretofore paid to persons so employed. The claimant, during part of the time, at least, signed the monthly pay rolls, and at no time during his employment did he make any claim that he was entitled to more. No question as to the liability of the state to pay the claimant any more could possibly arise, upon these facts, except for the enactment by the legislature of chapter 380 of the Laws of 1889, which took effect on the 6th of June of that year. Although this statute was repealed by the succeeding legislature (Laws 1890, c. 218), it was in force during nearly five months of the period of the employment. As the award rests entirely upon this statute, it may be well to give it here in the language used by the legislature:

‘An act to regulate the rate of wages on all public works in this state, and to define what laborers shall be employed thereon.

‘Section 1. From and after the passage of this act wages of day laborsers employed by the state, or any officer thereof, shall not be less than two dollars per day, and for all such employed otherwise than day laborers, at a rate of not less than twenty-five cents per hour.

‘Sec. 2. In all cases where laborsers are employed on any public work in this state, preference shall be given to citizens of the state of New York.

‘Sec. 3. This act shall take effect immediately.’

I am unable to see why the claimant was not a laborer upon the public works of the state, employed as such by an officer of the state, within the meaning of this statute. If the claimant was entitled to its benefits, he is not concluded by the fact that he received pay from time to time at former rates, and signed the pay rolls. He has not released the state from any of its legal obligations to him. The superintendent, who is charged with the duty and vested with the power, under the constitution, of employing all persons necessary in the care and management of the canals, might, notwithstanding this statute, have made contracts for labor and services, before it was passed, upon such terms and at such rates of compensation as, in his judgment, were most advantageous to the state; but the finding in this case implies that no such contract was made. The trial court might have found, from all the facts and circumstances, that the claimant agreed to perform the services for $20 per month, and that compensation at that rate was what the parties intended, but the evidence was of such a character as to render another view possible. At all events, under the circumstances of this case, we feel concluded by the finding. The statute did not take effect until after the claimant was employed; and if he entered the service under a contract, express or implied, it could not be affected by subsequent legislation. The contract need not be expressed in formal words or in writing, but could be implied from the situation and conduct of the parties, and from the circumstances.

There is no exception to the findings as made, and there was no request to find a contract from the facts disclosed. We must therefore treat the case as one of employment, merely, without any contract as to compensation; and this brings us to the question discussed by the learned attorney general in regard to the power of the legislature to enact the statute in question. By section 3 of article 5 of the constitution, certain powers are conferred and duties imposed upon the superintendent of public works with respect to the care and management of the canals that may not be affected by legislation. People v. Angle, 109 N. Y. 564, 17 N. E. 413...