Kellyville Coal Co. v. Harrier

• Decision Date: 17 February 1904
• Citation: 207 Ill. 624,69 N.E. 927
• Parties: KELLYVILLE COAL CO. v. HARRIER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

207 Ill. 624

69 N.E. 927

KELLYVILLE COAL CO.

v.HARRIER.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1904.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vermilion County; M. W. Thompson, Judge.

Action by A. J. Harrier against the Kellyville Coal Company in justice court. From a judgment for plaintiff on appeal to the circuit court, defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. M. Steely, for appellant.

W. T. Gunn, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Appellee brought this suit before a justice of the peace of Vermillion county, against appellant, to recover for wages due him as a miner. On appeal to the circuit court a jury was waived, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial. There were no disputed facts. Defendant owed plaintiff for wages, and plaintiff was indebted to defendant for groceries and household supplies purchased by him. The only controversy was as to the right of defendant to set off the amount due from plaintiff against his demand for wages; defendant claiming that right, and admitting that it owed plaintiff the balance. Plaintiff claimed the right to recover the whole amount of wages earned, and disputed the right to set off against the same the amount due from him to defendant.

Plaintiff's claim was based on sections 3 and 4 of an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the payment of wages in lawful money, and to prohibit the truck system, and to prevent deductions from wages except for lawful money actually advanced,’ in force July 1, 1891. Laws 1891, p. 212. The first and second sections of said act were declared in the case of Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171, 31 N. E. 395,16 L. R. A. 492, to be repugnant to the Constitution of the state and void. Those sections prohibit an employer engaged in mining or manufacturing from keeping or being interested in a store for furnishing supplies, tools, clothing, provisions, or groceries to his employés, and declare every person, company, corporation, or association violating that prohibition to be guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to a fine. Sections 3 and 4 are as follows:

‘Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any person, company, corporation or association, employing workmen in this state, to make deductions from the wages of his, its or their workmen, except for lawful money, checks or drafts actually advanced without discount, and except such sums as may be agreed upon between employer and employee, which may be deducted for hospital or relief fund for sick or injured employees.

‘Sec. 4. Any deductions made from the wages of any workman in this state, except as provided in section three (3) of this act, may be recovered in any appropriate action before any court of competent jurisdiction, together with such reasonable attorney's fee as the court in its discretion shall think proper, and no offset or counter-claim of any kind shall be allowed in such action or proceeding.’

On the trial of this case defendant submitted to the court a number of propositions of law asking the court to hold that defendant, under the law and its charter, has a legal right to keep a store and furnish and sell to its employés supplies, tools, clothing, provisions, groceries, and such other articles as its employés saw fit to purchase from it, and that so far as the act in question attempts to deprive defendant of the right to set off, against the demand of plaintiff for wages, any demand owing by plaintiff to defendant for groceries, merchandise, or other articles purchased at its stores, when it allows such right of set-off to farmers as against their employés, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Illinois. The court held the first proposition to be the law, to the effect that the defendant had the right to keep the store and sell such goods to its employés as they choose to purchase, but refused to hold that the third and fourth sections were in violation of the Constitution, or that the act was rendered unconstitutional by the provision that nothing contained in it should be construed to include the business of farmers or farm laborers or servants. The court held that an employer may sell goods to an...