Helphenstine v. Hartig

• Decision Date: 27 September 1892
• Docket Number: 366
• Citation: 31 N.E. 845,5 Ind.App. 172
• Parties: HELPHENSTINE v. HARTIG
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

31 N.E. 845

5 Ind.App. 172

HELPHENSTINE v. HARTIG

No. 366

Court of Appeals of Indiana

September 27, 1892

From the Daviess Circuit Court.

Case affirmed.

W. R Gardiner, S. H. Taylor and C. G. Gardiner, for appellant.

A. M Hardy, for appellee.

OPINION

NEW J.

The appellant filed his complaint in the court below on the 7th day of November, 1890, alleging that there was due him from the appellees, for services rendered, the sum of one hundred and seventy dollars.

Omitting formal parts, the complaint is as follows:

"The plaintiff, for his amended complaint, complains of the defendants, Nicholas Hartig and Conrad Hartig, and says: That said defendants are, and for one year last past have been partners, under the firm name of Hartig Brothers, and as such have been, during the whole of said time, carrying on the business of running a flouring mill, propelled by steam, belonging to them, and situated in the city of Washington, county of Daviess, and State of Indiana, and that plaintiff is an engineer; that, on the 28th day of January, 1890, by an agreement entered into by and between him and defendants, the said defendants employed him to run their engine used in said mill, and agreed to pay him therefor, as compensation for such services, ten dollars for each week, and the flour that he might need for use of his family. And plaintiff avers that in pursuance of said agreement, and the requirement of defendants hereinafter alleged, he did work for defendants as their engineer in said mill from the 28th day of January, 1890, until the 15th day of September, 1890. And he avers that defendants required him to work as such engineer in their said mill during said period of time, twelve hours each day, although there had been no agreement between them as to the number of hours he should work each day, and he avers that solely because of such requirement by defendants, and not otherwise, he did work as such engineer in defendants said mill twelve hours each day of twenty-four hours, instead of the legal day's work of eight hours, which he avers constituted one and one-half day's work each twenty-four hours, under the law of Indiana. And plaintiff avers that his said work and services for such extra time of four hours each day was of the value of six dollars per week of forty-eight hours. And so he avers that the full amount of time he worked as aforesaid for said defendants was fifty-one weeks, of forty-eight hours each, and that they have paid him on said work the sum of three hundred and forty dollars, the residue of which is due and wholly unpaid; that he files herewith a bill of items of his work, and the payment thereon, and makes the same a part hereof; that defendants have refused, before the commencement of this action, and still refuse, to pay to him the balance due to him. Wherefore he demands judgment for two hundred dollars, and for all other proper relief."

BILL OF ITEMS.

Hartig Brothers, to William A. Helphenstine, Dr.,

to 51 weeks' work as engineer at $ 10

$ 510.00

By cash

340.00

Balance due

$ 170.00

The defendants demurred to the complaint for want of facts. The court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff at the proper time excepted. The plaintiff refusing to further plead, judgment was rendered for the appellees upon the demurrer.

The only question presented for our decision relates to the sufficiency of the complaint. Appellant claims he worked twelve hours each day during the time mentioned in his complaint; that the law of this State makes eight hours a legal day's work for the kind of labor he performed, and that he is entitled to extra pay for the four hours he worked each day beyond eight hours.

It will be seen from the complaint that the appellees were, on the 28th day of January, 1890, and for the year last past had been, engaged in operating a flouring mill in the town of Washington, Daviess county, Indiana; that on the 28th day of January, 1890, the appellant, who was an engineer, entered into an agreement with said appellees, by the terms of which said appellees employed appellant to run their engine, used in said mill, and agreed to pay him therefor as compensation for such services ten dollars for each week and the flour he might need for the use of his family; that in pursuance of said agreement, he did work for appellees, as their engineer in said mill from said 28th day of January, 1890, until the 15th day of September, 1890. There was no special agreement as to the number of hours appellant should work each day, the agreement being that he should be paid $ 10 per week and the flour he might need for the use of his family. He says that appellees required him to work, as such engineer, during the period of time mentioned twelve hours each day, and that on account of such requirement and not otherwise, he did work twelve hours each day of twenty-four hours, instead of the legal day's work of eight hours, which he claims constituted one and one-half days' work each twenty-four hours under the law of Indiana, making in all fifty-one weeks of forty-eight hours each; that he worked for appellees, and that they have paid him only $ 340 for 34 weeks instead of $ 510 for 51 weeks, leaving due him the sum of $ 170, for which he demands judgment.

...