Ferber v. Wisen
Decision Date | 02 August 1938 |
Docket Number | 26988. |
Citation | 82 P.2d 139,195 Wash. 603 |
Parties | FERBER et al. v. WISEN. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roger J. Meakim, Judge.
Action under the Minimum Wage Law by Hilda Ferber and Hannah Halverson against Anna Wisen, for value of services rendered. From a joint judgment for plaintiffs in an insufficient amount, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank Harrington, of Seattle, for appellants.
Burkheimer & Burkheimer, of Seattle, for respondent.
This action is based upon chapter 174, p. 602, Laws of 1913 entitled, 'Minimum Wages For Women,' and Order No. 23 adopted by the industrial welfare commission pursuant thereto. This order became effective on October 4, 1921, and was in effect when the matters and things complained of took place. In the introductory part of the order, the commission defined the term 'Public Housekeeping' as comprising work in hotels, boarding houses, and similar institutions and including work done by waitresses. The order, in so far as material to our present inquiry, provided as follows:
rest in any Twenty-eight day period.
'* * *
'(9) That when board is furnished 95 cents per day may be deducted; and for a room furnished $2.00 per week may be deducted; that 20 cents may be deducted for breakfast, 30 cents for lunch and 45 cents for dinner; that in every case there shall be a definite agreement as to whether board and room shall or shall not be furnished; that otherwise the straight wage scale shall prevail.'
In April, 1937, the appellants, Hilda Ferber and Hannah Halverson, brought this action against the respondent, Anna Wisen, operator of the Alhambra hotel, in Seattle, upon the following allegations:
'That the plaintiffs entered the employment of the defendant on June 20th, 1934 and worked continuously seven (7) days a week until March 1, 1936, as waitresses for the defendant; that the plaintiffs were paid at the rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) a month, except during the summer months of July and August during 1934 and 1935; that the plaintiffs were paid at the rate of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) a month for each of said summer months during both years; that the plaintiffs were paid at the rate of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) a month for all the remaining part of the period aforesaid; that the plaintiffs have each received during the period aforesaid as their only compensation, the sum of Three Hundred Eighty Dollars ($380.00).
Each of the plaintiffs prayed for judgment for $852.50, with interest, costs, and attorney's fees, for the allowance of which the statute makes specific provision.
The amended answer set up (1) that the employment did not begin on June 20, 1934, but on August 22 of that year, and alleged (2) that it involved the service of but two meals per day, breakfast and dinner, which, less time off for plaintiffs' meals, included less than five hours of actual work per day; (3) that the plaintiffs and defendant agreed that each of the plaintiffs should receive as compensation twenty dollars per month, plus board, room, laundry, and telephone service of the agreed value of fifty dollars per month, except that during the summer months the cash consideration should be fifteen dollars per month instead of twenty.
Defendant also sets up that the statute was unconstitutional; that it referred only to full time employment, and other legal defenses not now material.
The case was tried to the court without a jury. We have Before us, in addition to the formal findings and conclusions, a memorandum opinion by the trial judge. He found the act constitutional; that it applied to the plaintiffs' employment, and that, although none of the parties knew of the existence of Order No. 23, it became a part of their contract. He, however, ruled against the plaintiffs on the principal issues of fact, finding that the employment did not begin until August 20, 1934, and that the agreed compensation was twenty dollars per month, plus board, lodging, and use of the telephone and laundry. It was admitted that the plaintiffs did not use the rooms. The plaintiffs testified that the rooms were below the ground level and too damp to be livable. There was testimony that the rooms were entirely above ground, and the court found against the plaintiffs on that issue.
The court did not give effect to the contention of the defendant that the agreed value of the board, room, and use of the telephone and laundry was fifty dollars per month, but applied the credits allowable as to board and room prescribed by subd. 9 of Order No. 23, and directed that the plaintiffs should have judgment for an amount to be determined by multiplying the number of weeks from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Northwest Magnesite Co.
...accruing prior to judgment. Wright v. Tacoma, 87 Wash. 334, 151 P. 837; Fowler v. Gray, 141 Wash. 372, 251 P. 570; Ferber v. Wisen, 195 Wash. 603, 82 P.2d 139; Fiorito v. Goerig, Wash., 179 P.2d 316. See 40 1027, 1028, Mines and Minerals, § 633. Appellant also contends that the court erred ......
-
Hansen v. Rothaus
...where he is unable to ascertain the amount he owes to the plaintiff. Prier, 74 Wash.2d at 34, 442 P.2d 621. Accord, Ferber v. Wisen, 195 Wash. 603, 610, 82 P.2d 139 (1938); Pearson Constr. Corp. v. Intertherm, Inc., 18 Wash.App. 17, 20, 566 P.2d 575 This court has consistently applied the l......
-
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Washington Elec. Co.
...the verdict, but we are of the opinion that it erred in including interest in the judgment from the date of the verdict. In Ferber v. Wisen, Wash., 82 P.2d 139, a case since the trial court rendered its decision in the instant case, it is pointed out that, where no interest is stipulated fo......
-
Dawson, Corbett & Shelp v. Lieurance & Canfield Const. Co., 2477
...of Tacoma, 87 Wash. 334, 151 P. 837, 844. 'See also Stover v. Winston Bros. Company, 185 Wash. 416, 430, 55 P.2d 821 and Ferber v. Wisen, 195 Wash. 603, 610, 82 P.2d 139. 'Appellants are not entitled to allowance of interest prior to the The court in reviewing on appeal the case of City of ......