James v. Sartin Dry Cleaning Co.

• Decision Date: 18 September 1935
• Docket Number: 742.
• Citation: James v. Sartin Dry Cleaning Co., 208 N.C. 412, 181 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1935)
• Parties: JAMES v. SARTIN DRY CLEANING CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

181 S.E. 341

208 N.C. 412

JAMES v. SARTIN DRY CLEANING CO.

No. 742.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 18, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Pless, Judge.

Action by Joseph James against Sartin Dry Cleaning Company.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

No error.

Civil action "for $200.00 due by back salary," instituted in a court of a justice of the peace; dismissed in the court of first instance; tried de novo on appeal to the superior court.

Plaintiff testified that he worked for defendant in 1933 as a "dry cleaner" at a wage less than that stipulated in the "President's Re-employment Agreement," made pursuant to section 4(a) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 15 USCA § 704(a), voluntarily signed by defendant; and he sues to recover the difference between what he was paid and what he alleges the defendant agreed with the President to pay him for the time he was employed.This difference plaintiff contends, really amounted to $240, but he only seeks to recover $200.

Plaintiff says he was first paid $6 a week, later $9 a week; whereas under the terms of the President's Re-employment Agreement, relative to hours and wages, he should have been paid not less than $12 a week, or 30 cents an hour for a 40-hour week."I received $6.00 a week until about three weeks before Christmas, and from that time I received $9.00 a week until the Saturday before Christmas when I got drunk and lost my job."Suit was instituted May 26, 1934.

The defendant, on the other hand, offered evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was not a "dry cleaner," but a general utility boy, engaged on part-time basis, and that the schedule of wages paid him was accordant with the terms of the President's Re-employment Agreement.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $20.

Judgment on the verdict, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

Webster & Little, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.

Ira Julian, of Winston-Salem (Richard M. Chamberlain, of Winston-Salem, of counsel), for appellee.

STACY Chief Justice.

As the principal sum demanded in the complaint (summons) does not exceed $200, the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of the action.C. S.§ 1475;Brantley v. Finch,97 N.C. 911 S.E. 535;Brock v. Scott,159 N.C. 513, 75 S.E. 724.

The matter is likewise cognizable in the courts of this state, the jurisdiction of the federal courts not having been made exclusive either by the Constitution or act of Congress.Claflin v. Houseman,93 U.S. 130, 23 L.Ed. 833;Robb v. Connolly,111 U.S. 624, 4 S.Ct. 544, 28 L.Ed. 542;Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co.,223 U.S. 1, 32 S.Ct. 169, 56 L.Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44.

That the plaintiff is entitled to sue upon the "President's Re-employment Agreement," voluntarily signed by the defendant, either in equity, under the doctrine of subrogation, or at law, as upon a contract made for the benefit of a third person, is fully established and supported by the decisions in this jurisdiction.Rector v. Lyda,180 N.C. 577, 105 S.E. 170, 21 A. L. R. 411;Gorrell v. Greensboro Water Supply Co.,124 N.C. 328, 32 S.E. 720, 46 L. R. A. 513, 70 Am. St. Rep. 598;Baber v. Hanie,163 N.C. 588, 80 S.E. 57, 12 A. L. R. 1518.

It is said in some of the cases that the plaintiff occupies the position of a "donee beneficiary," or, at least, that he is no less advantageously circumstanced.First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Page,206 N.C. 18, 173 S.E. 312.See annotations 81 A. L. R. 1271, and 95 A. L. R. 42, 43.

The benefit, inter alia, which defendant derived from others in the industry signing similar agreements was sufficient consideration to make it enforceable....