Farr v. Smith Detective Agency & Night Watch Service, 438.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 438.,438. |
| Citation | 38 F. Supp. 105 |
| Parties | FARR v. SMITH DETECTIVE AGENCY & NIGHT WATCH SERVICE, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Chrestman, Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Bateman, of Dallas, Tex., for the motion.
Jack Johannes, of Dallas, Tex., opposed.
Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as a night watchman by the defendants, and was "assigned to watch the premises occupied by the Republic National Bank, a national banking corporation engaged in interstate commerce."
He alleges that while so employed he was paid less than the amount provided by the law for overtime. He sues for an amount which, together with liquidated damages and the attorneys fees, is less than $3,000.
The motion to dismiss contains two grounds; first, that this court has no jurisdiction because the amount is less than the law requires to enter this court.
This matter has been passed upon a number of times by this court, and I have been unable to agree with my brethren in some of the other districts who think that actions under this Act should be for an amount in excess of $3,000. The court would welcome a different ruling, because it would relieve this court of litigation which seems to be on the increase rather than on the decrease, and which has, in many respects, some unsatisfactory results.
The law that I think controls was cited in the case of Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Company, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 663, which has been cited by a number of courts with approval. I conceive this statute to be directed exclusively and wholly at interstate commerce, and the national courts are given jurisdiction over such controversies regardless of the amount involved, and the Supreme Court has so indicated in the tobacco case. Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092.
The second ground is that there is no allegation in the complaint that the defendants are engaged in interstate commerce.
It has been conceded in argument that the defendants are engaged in watch service; that the defendants are both Texas corporations, and have their principal place of business in Dallas, employing watchmen for all sorts of industry and places of business.
This question also has been spoken on plainly by the Supreme Court, as well as by the Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a statute which is quite plain itself. It has penalties and obligations and criminal liabilities and is directed at employer and employee engaged in interstate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...980, reversed on non-jurisdictional ground, 4 Cir., 126 F.2d 98; Stucker v. Roselle, D. C., 37 F.Supp. 864; Farr v. Smith Detective Agency & Night Watch Service, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 105; Britt v. Cole Drug Co., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 90; Tolliver v. Cudahy Packing Co., D.C., 39 F. Supp. 337. Owens v......
-
Fleming v. Arsenal Bldg. Corporation
...indeed in one or two matters went further than we have found it necessary as yet to go. In the district courts Farr v. Smith Detective A. & N. W. Service Inc., 38 F.Supp. 105, went off upon the fact that the ancillary services to the employer engaged in interstate commerce were occasional; ......
-
Bartholome v. Baltimore Fire Patrol & Despatch Co.
...patrolman or special watchman service has been held not liable under the Act for various reasons are Farr v. Smith Detective Agency & Night Watch Service, Inc., D.C., 38 F.Supp. 105; and Schrieber v. Kane Service Co., D.C.Ill., 1940, no opinion for publication. See, also, Bowman v. Pace Co.......
-
Fleming v. Sondock, 528.
...case, and say that to hold as Plaintiff contends would produce a reductio ad absurdum. Defendants cite Farr v. Smith Detective Agency & Night Watch Service, D.C.N.D. Tex., 38 F.Supp. 105; Schrieber v. Kane Service, D.C.S.D.Ill.,1 and other supporting cases. Because of the view I take of Def......