Snavely v. Shugart
| Decision Date | 12 May 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 628.,628. |
| Citation | 45 F. Supp. 722 |
| Parties | SNAVELY et al. v. SHUGART. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Leon C. Levy, of Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs.
Merrill & Scott and (W. H. Scott), all of Houston, Tex., for defendant.
Several plaintiffs on October 20, 1941, sued defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Sections 201 to 219, Title 29 U.S.C.A., and this is a trial of the case between plaintiffs L. L. Snavely, Everett L. Supka, and Leroy L. Gaudin, and defendant. The period covered by plaintiffs' pleadings is from October 24, 1938, to June 1, 1941, and the claim is that plaintiffs worked more hours per week and were paid less wages per week than permitted by such Act. The facts are substantially as follows:
(a) Defendant is engaged in the business of testing the eyes of a person, prescribing proper glasses for him, and making and fitting him with glasses. Also engaged in making and fitting a person with glasses upon the prescription of some other person — a doctor — who has tested his eyes.
(b) Defendant buys his supplies — eye glass lenses, frames, etc. — in the market, and most of such supplies are shipped to him in interstate commerce from points outside of Texas. None of these plaintiffs, however, had during their employment anything to do with such shipments before such supplies come to rest in the store room of defendant, except plaintiff L. L. Snavely, who was bookkeeper for defendant and who handled the invoices, bills, etc., and did the bookkeeping in connection with such interstate shipments. Snavely kept the books covering defendant's entire business, and there is no dependable evidence as to the time Snavely was employed in connection with such supplies.
(c) About 5% of the glasses made and fitted by defendant were ordered from and shipped to points outside of Texas and in interstate commerce. Approximately 1% of defendant's income from his business was from such interstate business. The plaintiffs Supka and Gaudin were engaged in making glasses, and plaintiff Snavely kept the books of defendant with respect to the business, but there is no dependable evidence as to the time either of them were employed in connection with the glasses made and shipped to points outside of Texas, i.e., in interstate commerce.
(d) The glasses made by defendant were made for persons residing in Texas, except the percentage stated above, and the business was retail and service in its nature, except that in some instances, it was called wholesale, because the order for the glasses came through a doctor and were shipped to a doctor, and such doctor was charged less than individuals who ordered direct. In other words, the doctor was, in those instances, given what defendant calls a wholesale price. However, the doctor did not sell the glasses indiscriminately, but delivered them to the person ordering them and for whom they had been prepared. I do not regard this as being wholesale. The far greater part of defendant's selling and servicing in connection with such glasses was, and the far greater part of his income from selling and servicing was, during the period, in intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce.
(e) There is no dependable evidence that either of the plaintiffs was employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity.
(f) Plaintiff Snavely went to work for defendant January 9, 1939, and worked until ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agnew v. Johnson
...Southwest Co. v. McBride, 124 F.2d 90; White Motor Co. v. Littleton, 124 F.2d 92; Jewell Tea Co. v. Williams, 202 F.2d 202; Snavely et al. v. Schugart, 45 F.Supp. 722; Silgaro v. Port Compress Co., 45 F.Supp. Jones v. Springfield, Mo., Pkg. Co., 45 F.Supp. 997; Owin v. Liquid Carbonic Corp.......
-
Ashenford v. L. Yukon & Sons Produce Co.
... ... v. McBride (5 ... C. C. A.), 124 F.2d 90; Silgaro v. Port Compress Co ... (D. C. Tex.), 45 F.Supp. 88, 91; Snavely et al. v ... Shugart (D. C. Tex.), 45 F.Supp. 722. (2) The court ... erred in refusing, upon defendant's motion, to make H ... Winer Produce ... ...
-
Fountain v. St. Joseph Water Co.
...v. Littleton, 124 F.2d 92; Camfield v. West Texas Utilities Co., 170 S.W.2d 552; Silgaro v. Port Compress Co., 45 F.Supp. 88; Snavely v. Shugart, 45 F.Supp. 722; Tucker Hitchcock, 44 F.Supp. l.c. 879; Corbett v. Schlumberger, 43 F.Supp. 605; Moses v. McKesson & Robbins, 43 F.Supp. 528; Holl......
-
Murphy v. Georgia Aero-Tech.
...Elevator Co., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 275; Fleming v. Kenton Loose Leaf Tobacco Warehouse Co., D.C., 41 F.Supp. 255(3), 256, 257; Snavely v. Shugart, D.C., 45 F. Supp. 722; Lorenzetti v. American Trust Co., D.C., 45 F.Supp. 128; Consolidated Timber Co. v. Womack, 9 Cir., 132 F.2d 101, 102, 106, ...