Orr Cotton Mills v. St. Mary's Hospital

• Decision Date: 06 July 1943
• Docket Number: 15557.
• Parties: ORR COTTON MILLS v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

26 S.E.2d 408

203 S.C. 114

ORR COTTON MILLS v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL et al.

No. 15557.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 6, 1943

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; E. H Henderson, Judge.

Action by Orr Cotton Mills against St. Mary's Hospital and others to enjoin enforcement of certain wage assignments. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

A person has a right, if he so desires, to assume, in one instance, a burden of honoring assignments, which the law would not otherwise impose upon him, without depriving himself of the right to insist upon legal observance of right not to honor assignments in other cases, and no element of estoppel can arise.

The order of Judge Henderson, ordered to be reported, is as follows:

Fifteen employees of Orr Cotton Mills received treatment at St. Mary's Hospital and from Dr. C S. Breedin, and executed to them partial assignments of their future wages. These were represented by notes for various amounts of money, and appended to the notes were instruments in writing in which each of the parties assigned varying sums each week or month out of his wages to apply on the note, and authorized his "employer or employers whoever they may be or wherever they may be" to pay this sum to the defendants. The amount of wages assigned varied in the different instruments from $1, $2, and $3 per week to $10 per month. The defendants presented true copies of these assignments to the mill and it refused to accept them, and no part of the wages earned by the assignors from the plaintiff since the date of the assignments has been paid to the defendants by the mill, nor deducted by it from the wages of such employees. This action in equity is brought by the plaintiff, seeking to enjoin the defendants from demanding and requiring the acceptance or recognition of the assignments, and from proceeding to enforce any liability thereon upon the plaintiff.

The law as to partial assignments of future wages has been clearly settled by the case of Pacific Mills v. Textile Workers' Union, 197 S.C. 330, 15 S.E.2d 134, 136, 135 A.L.R. 497. It was there shown that "while the Courts of this State recognize a partial assignment of a chose in action as an equitable assignment and will protect the assignee when they can do so without working a hardship upon the debtor, yet the enforcement of such partial assignment can only be had in a Court of Equity;" and that if a partial assignment does work a substantial hardship upon the debtor it will not be enforced by the Court.

The plaintiff in the present case objects to being forced to honor the assignments, on the ground that to do so would impose a substantial hardship upon it.

The defendants, on the other hand, contend that the assignments would not place an unjust burden or hardship upon the plaintiff.

The question to be determined, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Does the evidence show that the acceptance of the assignments would work a hardship upon the Orr Cotton Mills?

I have given careful consideration to the testimony in this case, and it is my opinion that the enforcement of the assignments against the mill would result in a substantial hardship upon it. The mill finds it difficult to get experienced office workers, and is already greatly occupied in its clerical department by government requirements under the Social Security Law, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., the Wage and Hour Law, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and the handling of the Victory Tax. Three employees have been added in the office. Though its paymasters and office force are now fully engaged so that they have no spare time, the handling of these assignments would entail upon it one hour per week of additional clerical work. The assignments run for various lengths of time. One will run as long as 215 weeks,...