Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., No. 156 Civil.
| Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | WILSON |
| Citation | 40 F. Supp. 272 |
| Docket Number | No. 156 Civil. |
| Decision Date | 18 July 1941 |
| Parties | HALL et al. v. WARREN-BRADSHAW DRILLING CO. |
40 F. Supp. 272
HALL et al.
v.
WARREN-BRADSHAW DRILLING CO.
No. 156 Civil.
District Court, N. D. Texas, Amarillo Division.
July 18, 1941.
Scarborough, Yates & Scarborough, of Abilene, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Settle, Monnet & Clammer, of Tulsa, Okl., and Underwood, Johnson, Dooley & Wilson, of Amarillo, Tex., for defendant.
WILSON, District Judge.
The eight plaintiffs here sue the defendant for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title 29, U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. They constituted a rotary drilling crew in drilling oil wells in the Panhandle Oil Field of Texas, or, as defendant put it, holes in the ground, for the defendant. All of them drew rather good wages ranging from around $6.50 to $7 and up to as high as $11 per day for their work. As a practical matter, in the drilling of these oil wells, the defendant used rotary rigs for drilling the wells down to, or near to, the pay sand. At that juncture, the rotary crews would cement the casing at or near the expected pay sand, and then would withdraw all the rotary machinery and another crew would move in and complete the well, bring it in, or demonstrate it was a dry hole, with cable tools. In other words, plaintiffs here did not do the whole job, but it was finished by the cable tools crew. That is true with respect to every well on which the plaintiffs worked that is involved in this suit. As far as the record shows, all of the wells upon which plaintiffs worked were producers of oil or gas in paying quantities. The defendant was not the owner of any of the leases worked upon.
Defendant's first position is that plaintiffs were employed by it as a contract driller, and performing such labor for it did not come under the terms of the Act. In other words, that because of defendant's position as an independent contractor, it was not engaged in interstate commerce in so working these men and the law was not applicable to it, etc. I cannot agree with that position. I am not able to see how the stated capacity in which the employer was engaged can affect the question as to whether these plaintiffs were engaged in producing goods for commerce...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lorenzetti v. American Trust Co., No. 21826
...v. American Stores Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 511; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172; Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., D.C., 40 F.Supp. 272; Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 202; Fleming v. A. B. Kirschbaum Co., 3 Cir., 124 F.2d 567; Fleming v. Arsenal Bldg. Corp., 2......
-
Corbett v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp., Civil Action No. 570.
...other than above indicated. When it finished such work, it would move to another location and commence another well, and so on, * * *' 40 F.Supp. 272. `As a practical matter, in the drilling of these oil wells, the defendant used rotary rigs for drilling the wells down to, or near to, the p......
-
Fleming v. AB Kirschbaum Co., No. 7733.
...application of the act is determined by the character of the employee's work is Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., D.C. N.D.Tex.1941, 40 F.Supp. 272, and of the cases holding that it is determined by the nature of the employer's business as well as by the character of the employee's work......
-
Drilling Co v. Hall, WARREN-BRADSHAW
...between the states, and in that sense necessary to its existence. 1 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. 2 40 F.Supp. 272. 3 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 42. 4 "Produced' means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on in any State;' 5 Th......
-
Lorenzetti v. American Trust Co., No. 21826
...v. American Stores Co., D.C., 42 F.Supp. 511; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172; Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., D.C., 40 F.Supp. 272; Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 202; Fleming v. A. B. Kirschbaum Co., 3 Cir., 124 F.2d 567; Fleming v. Arsenal Bldg. Corp., 2......
-
Corbett v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp., Civil Action No. 570.
...other than above indicated. When it finished such work, it would move to another location and commence another well, and so on, * * *' 40 F.Supp. 272. `As a practical matter, in the drilling of these oil wells, the defendant used rotary rigs for drilling the wells down to, or near to, the p......
-
Fleming v. AB Kirschbaum Co., No. 7733.
...application of the act is determined by the character of the employee's work is Hall v. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co., D.C. N.D.Tex.1941, 40 F.Supp. 272, and of the cases holding that it is determined by the nature of the employer's business as well as by the character of the employee's work......
-
Drilling Co v. Hall, WARREN-BRADSHAW
...between the states, and in that sense necessary to its existence. 1 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. 2 40 F.Supp. 272. 3 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 42. 4 "Produced' means produced, manufactured, mined, handled, or in any other manner worked on in any State;' 5 Th......