Latta v. Lonsdale
Decision Date | 04 April 1901 |
Docket Number | 1,419. |
Citation | 107 F. 585 |
Parties | LATTA v. LONSDALE et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
George G. Latta and Thomas A. Warren, for appellant.
S. R Cockrill and Ashley Cockrill, for appellees.
Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and ADAMS, District judge.
In an equity suit in which Johnson and Hansen were complainants and the Little Rock, Hot Springs & Texas Railroad Company, an Arkansas corporation, was defendant, a receiver was appointed to wind up the affairs of the railroad company, which was insolvent. G. G. Latta, the appellant, intervened, asserting a claim against the railroad company for $4,705.25, and interest, for salary due him as an attorney for the corporation prior to the appointment of the receiver. The court allowed the claim, but refused to give it preference over the secured debts of the company. The court's refusal to give preference to the appellant's claim raises the only question involved. The appellant bases his claim to a preference solely on sections 1425 and 1426 of Sandels & Hill's Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas which read as follows:
A lawyer employed by a railroad company on a yearly salary payable monthly, is not a laborer or employe, within the meaning of the sections quoted. Cent. Dict. tit. 'Wage'; Lewis v. Fisher, 80 Md. 139, 30 A. 608; Casualty Ins. Co.'s Case, 82 Md. 538, 566, 34 A. 778; Bristor v. Smith, 158 N.Y. 157, 53 N.E. 42; In re Stryker, 158 N.Y. 526, 530, 53 N.E. 525; Bristor v. Kretz, 49 N.Y.Supp. 404; Vane v. Newcombe, 132 U.S. 220, 237, 10 Sup.Ct. 60, 33 L.Ed. 310; Railroad Co. v. Wilson, 138 U.S. 501, 505, 11 Sup.Ct. 405, 34 L.Ed. 1023; 3 Thomp. Corp. § 3145. It is very generally believed that corporation lawyers have the opportunity, and are quite able and capable, of taking care of themselves when their clients fail, and statutes of the character quoted are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Medical Ass'n v. United States
...nor is a minister, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 463, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226; nor a lawyer, Latta v. Lonsdale, 8 Cir., 107 F. 585, 52 L.R.A. 479; nor a teacher, School Dist. No. 94 v. Gautier, 13 Okl. 194, 204, 73 P. 954, 957; nor an actor, Universal Pictures Corp.......
-
United States v. American Trucking Ass Ns
...to priority in rehiring held 'employees' within meaning of Railway Labor Act), discussed in 51 Harv.L.Rev. 1299; Latta v. Lonsdale, 8 Cir., 107 F. 585, 52 L.R.A. 479 (attorney not 'employee' within meaning of statute giving 'employees' preference against assets of insolvent corporations); V......
-
Powell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
... ... Railroad, 125 Mo. 666; Cornell v. Railroad, 143 ... Mo.App. 598. (a) Deceased was not an employee. Clark v ... Renninger, 89 Md. 66; Latta v. Lonsdale, 107 F ... 585. (b) An employee may be a passenger and entitled to their ... rights. Hutchinson, Carriers (3 Ed.), sec. 1004; ... ...
-
United States v. Butler
... ... Cook (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 598; Gay v. Hudson River (C. C.) 178 F. 499, 500; Gurney v. Atl. Ry. Co., 58 N. Y. 358; Latta v. Lonsdale (C. C. A.) 107 F. 585, 52 L. R. A. 479 ... While it is true that it is most often used of those employed in less ... ...