Jones v. Inhabitants of Town of Natick

• Decision Date: 06 June 1929
• Citation: 267 Mass. 567,166 N.E. 754
• Parties: JONES et al. v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF NATICK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

267 Mass. 567

166 N.E. 754

JONES et al.

v.INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF NATICK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 6, 1929.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Hammond, Judge.

Suit by Milton F. Jones and others against the inhabitants of the Town of Natick, John T. Porter, and another. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant last named appeals. Affirmed.

William J. Patron and Frank D. McCarthy, both of Boston, for appellant.

John W. Brennan, of Boston, for Jones and others.

William Reed Bigelow, of Boston, for Town of Natick.

CROSBY, J.

This is a bill in equity by fifteen taxpayers to restrain an alleged illegal expenditure of money by the town of Natick. At an adjourned town meeting held on April 17, 1928, under article 78 of the warrant it was voted that the town reimburse the defendant John T. Porter in the sum of $1,202.64 ‘for overtime service rendered in the Street Department of the Board of Public Works.’

The case was referred to a master whose findings of fact in the absence of a report of the evidence must stand. The master found the following facts: Porter was engaged by one Oakes, foreman of the highway division of the public works department of Natick, as a laborer in August, 1923, and was paid at the rate of $5 for an eight-hour day of actual work performed; three days after his employment began and as long as it continued he drove a pair of horses; his wages at $5 for each eight-hour day continued for a little more than a year and during this time he received various sums for overtime work. In October, 1924, he was made a ‘regular man’ in the same division; his work was practically the same as before, but he had a more desirable job in that he received $27.50 weekly without regard to weather conditions or holidays and was allowed a vacation of one week each year with pay. He lived near the stable and was expected to be there in time to harness his horses and be at the place where his work was to be done by eight o'clock. In summer he quit work at 5 o'clock and in the winter at 4:30. He accepted this new position with longer hours and more money than he received when he worked for $5 a day of eight hours willingly and with a full realization of the demands of the job. Soon after he began receiving $27.50 weekly he complained to his foreman ‘of his long hours, * * * his complaints continued with some regularity during the remaining time of his employment,’ and although he made requests for overtime pay as well as for an increase of wages, ‘his requests and complaints related only to an increase of his regular wages.’ During his employment at $27.50 per week he was paid for overtime work during fifteen weeks, amounting to $47.50. All payments to him were made by checks drawn by the town treasurer and all were indorsed by him; on the back of each check was printed the following: ‘This check when properly indorsed is in full payment of account, as follows:’ Then follow columns headed ‘Date, Dept. Amount,’ all being left blank on the checks given to Porter.

The master further found that he was ‘possessed of sufficient intelligence to comprehend the meaning of the words printed on the back of the checks; that he should have understood that he received said checks in full payment for work done to the date of each’; that Porter's first request for pay for overtime was made to the board of public works at a meeting held a few weeks after he gave up his work; that in July, 1926, he presented an itemized statement claiming $1,625.93 for overtime work; that the sum of $1,202.64, voted by the town in 1928, is the amount of a subsequent itemized statement prepared by him. The master states that ‘looking at the alleged claim for overtime most favorably to the defendant I find that, if seasonably demanded, he might have been entitled to overtime pay in accordance with the following schedule. * * * This schedule left a possible balance due of $49.72.

The master also found that Porter was entitled to overtime only when he was called out for plowing snow and while caring for a sick horse, and not for the regular...