Knoxville Iron Company v. Samuel Harbison
Decision Date | 21 October 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 22,22 |
Citation | 46 L.Ed. 55,183 U.S. 13,22 S.Ct. 1 |
Parties | KNOXVILLE IRON COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. SAMUEL HARBISON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In the chancery court of Knox county, Tennessee, Samuel Harbison, a citizen of said state, on June 2, 1899, filed a bill of complaint against the Knoxville Iron Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Tennessee, alleging that he was the bona fide holder by purchase in due course of trade of certain specified accepted orders for coal that had been issued by the defendant company in payment of wages due to its employees; that he had made due demand for their redemption in cash according to law, which demand had been refused; and that he was entitled to a decree for the amount of said orders, with interest. The company filed an answer denying that the complainant was a bona fide holder of the orders in question, and alleging an agreement between the company and its employees that the latter would accept coal in payment of said orders, etc.
Proof was taken and the case heard by the chancellor, who rendered a decree in favor of the complainant for $1,702.66 as principal and interest of said orders, with costs. An appeal was taken by the defendant company to the court of chancery appeals of Tennessee, an intermediate court of reference in equity causes, where the decree of the chancery court of Knox county was affirmed.
The facts as found by the court of chancery appeals are as follows:
'The defendant is a corporation chartered under chapter 57, Acts of 1867-68. The following powers are given by § 4:
time, so far as concerns the matter of cash payments, but they may collect this sum and all sums that may be due them in coal orders, as stated below. It does not and will not pay cash to its employees for wages at any other time than upon said regular pay days. Defendant, however, nearly always has on hand in its Knoxville yard a large amount of coal which it sells to all persons who are willing to purchase, whether such persons are its laborers or the public generally. For some time prior to the filing of the bill and at the time the bill was filed the defendant was and had been accustomed to accept from its laborers, after work had been performed, orders for coal in the following form:
'The defendant's employees are accustomed to sign orders, and in this form they are accepted by a stamp in these words:
The orders sued on in this case were issued after the passage of the act of March 17, 1899.
From the decree of the chancery court of appeals an appeal was taken by the company to the supreme court of Tennessee, by which court the decrees of the courts below were affirmed. The case was then brought to this court by a writ of error allowed by the chief justice of the supreme court of Tennessee.
Messrs. E. T. Sanford, Cornelius E. Lucky, and James A. Fowler for plaintiff in error.
Mr. John W. Green submitted the case for defendant in error, and Mr. Samuel G. Shields was with him on the brief.
This is a suit in equity brought to this court by a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of Tennessee, involving the validity, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGrew v. Industrial Commission
... ... fixed by law. Utah Copper Company V. Public ... Utilities Commission , 59 Utah 191, 203 P ... wages to be redeemable in cash, Knoxville Iron Co ... V. Harbison , 183 U.S. 13, 22 S.Ct. 1, 46 ... ...
-
Miller v. Crawford
...N.Y. 293; Wynhamer v. People, 20 Barb., 567; Mangan v. State, 76 Ala. 60; Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Co., 103 Tenn. 421; Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13; Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N.Y.......
-
Martin v. City of Boise
...be deemed necessary or expedient for the safety, health, morals, comfort and welfare of its people." Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13, 20, 22 S.Ct. 1, 46 L.Ed. 55 (1901) (internal quotations omitted). I fear that the panel’s decision will prohibit local governments from fulfillin......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co.
...and time of payment of wages may be included: McLean v. Arkansas, 211 U. S. 539, 29 S.Ct. 206, 53 L.Ed. 315; Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13, 22 S.Ct. 1, 46 L.Ed. 55; Keokee Consolidated Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U.S. 224, 34 S.Ct. 856, 58 L.Ed. 1288; Erie R. R. Co. v. Williams, 2......
-
Constituting Workers, Protecting Women: Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era and New Deal Years.
...v. Barton, 183 U.S. 23 (1901) (upholding a law requiring mining companies to pay their workers in cash); Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13 (1901) (37.) 198 U.S. 45 (1905). (38.) See David E. Bernstein, The Story of Lochner v. New York, in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW STORIES (Michael Doff e......
-
A New Method of Constitutional Amendment By Popular Vote
...act of New York3 Frorer vs. The People, 141 Ill. 171 (1892).4 Kansas vs. Haun, 61 Kan. 146 (1899).5 State vs. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307 (1893).6 183 U. S. 13 (1901).7 For the cases and discussion of the acts dealing with store orders see " Freund on the PolicePower," sections 319, 320 and 321.8 I......
-
The Constitutional Problem of Workmen's Compensation
...An opposite conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Knoxville Iron Company vs. Harbison (183 U. S. 13), a casedecided in 1001. Though the language of the two courts indicates,apparently, a wide divergence in attitude towards such fundamentally the......