Golden v. Salkeld Coal Co.

• Citation: 101 W.Va. 341
• Decision Date: 13 April 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 5401.)
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia
• Parties: Dewey Golden, use George Ensminger v. Salkeld Coal Company.

101 W.Va. 341

Dewey Golden, use George Ensminger

v.Salkeld Coal Company.

(No. 5401.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted March 30, 1926.

Decided April 13, 1926.

Appeal and Error Verdict for Plaintiff Will Not he Disturbed if Evidence is in Sharp Conflict and There Was No Error Committed, by Trial Court.

A verdict for the plaintiff will not be disturbed by the appellate court where the evidence on the controlling questions of fact, is in sharp conflict, and it appears that there has been no error of law committed by the trial court.

(Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. § 2836.)

(Note: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. Cyc. Not part of syllabi.)

Error to Circuit Court, Barbour County.

Action by Dewey Golden, to the use of George Ensminger, against the Salkeld Coal Company on a contract. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

J. Blackburn Ware, for plaintiff in error. Wm. T. George, for defendant, in error.

Woods, Judge:

This action was originally instituted before a justice of the peace of Barbour county by George Ensminger, in the name of Dewey Golden, for his use, against the Salkeld Coal Company, a corporation, to recover extra compensation, which plaintiff claimed the company had agreed to pay Golden upon the adoption of a higher wage scale by the United Mine Workers of America. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the case was tried de novo. Upon the re-trial, the plaintiff was awarded a judgment of $181.06, which included the amount of the claim, plus interest. Prom this judgment the defendant comes here on writ of error.

On March 31, 1922, the day before all union miners were called on strike, the employees (including Golden) of the defendant compan}r, working non-union, went to the superintendent and manager and told them that they would quit if they didn't receive the union scale of wages to be later adopted. The manager told them that he would call the office in Pittsburgh and ascertain the company's attitude, and on the following day informed the men that if they would continue work that on the adoption of the union scale the company would pay each man any excess over the rate the company was then paying, but if less, that no deduction would be made. The union scale went into effect August 1, 1922. Golden quit working for defendant company, after notifying the manager, on June 2, 1922. He claims that he is entitled to the difference between what he actually received for his services and the scale adopted for motormen, which plaintiff's witnesses place at 90-3/4c per hour. This claim was assigned to the plaintiff Ensminger.

The two issues raised by the record are: (1) What were the terms of the contract; and (2) did the manager have authority to make the contract?

The plaintiff contends that the only limitation of the contract was that the men would be paid if they did not walk out on strike; while the company claims that it intended to pay only those who remained in its employ at the time the scale actually went into effect. Dewey Golden testified that the manager told the men to go ahead and work and whatever the union scale was set at, he would pay that if it was more than they were getting; that according to the scale adopted by The United Mine Workers his type of work was fixed at 90-3/4c per hour; that he later told the manager that he was going to stop, and that the manager in reply told him to go ahead and work, and that when the scale was signed up that he would pay any...