Pendergast v. Yandes
| Decision Date | 29 May 1890 |
| Docket Number | 15,602 |
| Parties | Pendergast v. Yandes, Receiver |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Superior Court.
The judgment is reversed, as to the claim in suit to be general debt, to be paid out of the assets in the hands of the receiver, with directions to enter the proper order declaring the same preferred claim.
J. L McMaster and A. Boice, for appellant.
J. S Duncan and C. W. Smith, for appellee.
The appellee was duly appointed and qualified as receiver of the Broad Ripple Natural Gas Company, a corporation organized for the purpose of supplying consumers with natural gas.
After his appointment the appellant filed the claim now in dispute and sought to have the same allowed and paid as a preferred claim. The cause was tried by the court, which made a special finding of the facts in the cause and stated its conclusions of law thereon.
It appears from this special finding that the Broad Ripple Natural Gas Company is a corporation organized under the laws of this State for the purpose of supplying to consumers natural gas.
On the 19th day of March, 1888, it employed the appellant as superintendent, for the purpose of superintending the construction of its pipe lines in the city of Indianapolis and Marion county, and he continued to be so employed for one year. As such superintendent he had full supervision of the digging of gas trenches, the laying of the gas pipes, the testing of gas wells, and connecting them with the pipe lines, with authority to hire as many employees as he chose and to discharge them at his pleasure, and had full control over said employees, who at times numbered from one hundred and fifty to two hundred. He was himself responsible directly to the company, and had no immediate superior officer except the president and vice-president. His duty was almost wholly confined to superintending the employees under his control, and in the discharge of which duty he was required to do a great deal of walking along the pipe lines, and when testing gas wells it was necessary for him to handle wrenches and other tools for a few minutes; but beyond this the discharge of his duties did not make it necessary for him to do any physical or manual labor other than such as is ordinarily incident to the superintendency of the employees engaged in such work, although he did occasionally, of his own volition, when work was pressing and there was scarcity of hands, do some physical labor in the handling of gas pipes, and other work incident to the laying and fitting of them.
His salary or compensation was one hundred dollars per month.
His duties kept him constantly with the men who were engaged in the manual labor of laying the pipes and doing the other work herein specified, to see that such work was done properly and with proper mechanical skill; and as these men were often separated into different gangs, it was necessary for him to travel back and forth from one gang to another.
There is nothing in the articles of association or by-laws of said company specifying such an officer as that of superintendent.
The receiver was appointed on the 18th day of April, 1889. The company is insolvent, and its assets are not sufficient to pay the claims against it in full.
There is now due the appellant for services performed by him as such superintendent the sum of fifty dollars, all of which accrued within sixty days prior to the appointment of the receiver.
Upon these facts the court rendered a judgment in favor of the appellant for the sum of fifty dollars, but refused to declare it a preferred claim.
Section 1605, Elliott's Supp., is as follows: "Hereafter, when the property of any company, corporation, firm or person, engaged in any manufacturing, mechanical, agricultural or other business or employment, or in the construction of any work or building, shall be seized upon any mesne or final process of any court of this State, or where their business shall be suspended by the action of creditors or put into the hands of any assignee, receiver or trustee, then in all such cases the debts owing to laborers or employees, which have accrued by reason of their labor or employment to an amount not exceeding fifty dollars to each employee, for work and labor performed within six months next preceding the seizure of such property, shall be considered and treated as preferred debts and such laborers or employees shall be preferred creditors and shall be first paid in full, and if there be not sufficient to pay them in full, then the same shall be paid to them pro rata, after paying costs."
The sole question presented for our consideration and decision is the one involving the construction of this statute. It is contended by the appellant that his claim falls within the letter as well as the spirit of the statute, while on the other hand it is contended by the appellee that the statute was intended to cover and secure such employees only as perform physical or manual labor.
The argument of the appellee is that the word "or" is used as a disjunctive conjunction, and the words between which it stands being simply used as synonymous and both expressing the same idea, the word "employee" is altogether synonymous with the word "laborer." It is contended on the other hand by the appellant that the words "laborer" and "employee" are not used in this statute as synonymous terms, but that the word "employee" was intended to have and should receive a much broader interpretation than the word "laborer."
In view of the conclusion we have reached in this case, we deem it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pendergast v. Yandes
...124 Ind. 15924 N.E. 724Pendergastv.Yandes.Supreme Court of Indiana.May 29, Appeal from superior court, Marion county; D. W. Howe, Judge.McMaster & Boice, for appellant. Duncan & Smith, for appellee.Coffey, J. The appellee was duly appointed and qualified as receiver of the Broad Ripple Natu......