State v. Midwest Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1917
• Docket Number: 21055
• Citation: 162 P. 1175,99 Kan. 838
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BREWSTER, ATTY. GEN., v. MIDWEST CONST. CO.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

162 P. 1175

99 Kan. 838

STATE EX REL. BREWSTER, ATTY. GEN., v. MIDWEST CONST. CO.

No. 21055

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 10, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence does not establish that the defendant is paying less than the current rate of wages to its employés.

The facts established by the evidence disclose that the occasions on which the defendant required its employés to work more than eight hours per day were within the exceptions named in section 1, c. 220, Laws 1913.

Quo warranto by the State of Kansas, on relation of S. M Brewster, as Attorney General, etc., against the Midwest Construction Company. Application for appointment of a receiver and for a temporary injunction denied.

S. M Brewster, Atty Gen., S. N. Hawkes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J L. Hunt, of Topeka, for plaintiff.

Homer H. Berger, of Kansas City, Mo., and A. L. Berger, of Kansas City, Kan., for defendant.

OPINION

MARSHALL, J.

The defendant, under a contract with Wyandotte county, is building a concrete bridge across the Kansas river in that county.

This is an original proceeding in quo warranto. The defendant is charged with violating chapter 220 of the Laws of 1913. The action is brought to oust the defendant from exercising the corporate privileges or franchises of requiring laborers employed by it to work for more than eight hours per day, and from paying laborers less than the current rate of wages in the locality in which the work is being performed. The order now asked by the state is that the court appoint a receiver for the defendant, or, if a receiver is not appointed, that a temporary injunction be granted restraining the defendant from requiring its workmen to work more than eight hours per day, and from paying such workmen less than the current rate of wages.

The evidence submitted is contained in affidavits. The principal questions to be determined are those of fact. When the facts are ascertained, the law can be easily applied.

1. The plaintiff’s evidence tends to show that the current rate of wages is 65 cents an hour for "carpenters who are employed as form builders for concrete construction," for one employed "as a carpenter or form builder," for "caenters and form builders," for labor which "required the building of forms," for "a carpenter or form builder," for "form building for reinforced concrete construction of all kinds," and "that the rate of wages paid to and received by members of said union (the carpenters’ union) for form building for reinforced concrete construction is 65 cents per hour." The plaintiff’s evidence also tends to show that:

"The work of building forms for said work (the work being done by the defendant) requires as much, if not greater, skill and ability as a carpenter than the building of forms for ordinary reinforced concrete construction of buildings, ... and that the work of form building upon said Kansas river Central Avenue bridge and its approaches required the same skill and ability, and was of the same class of work as the work done upon said buildings [[[buildings erected for the Southwest Milling Company, the Stevens Engineering Company, the Peet Bros. soap plant, and the Proctor & Gamble Soap Company]."

The defendant’s evidence tends to show that the current rate of wages for form builders for reinforced concrete work on bridges and viaducts constructed in Wyandotte county, Kan and in Kansas City, Mo., and on other reinforced concrete work similar to that done by the defendant, is from 35 to 40 cents an hour, and is not in excess of 40 cents per...