State v. Prudential Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1914
• Citation: 170 S.W. 56
• Parties: STATE v. PRUDENTIAL COAL CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

170 S.W. 56

STATE v. PRUDENTIAL COAL CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 31, 1914.

Appeal from Criminal and Law Court, Morgan County; Xen Hicks, Judge.

Demurrer to indictment against the Prudential Coal Company was sustained, and the State appeals. Affirmed.

Frank M. Thompson, Atty. Gen., for the State. Lindsay, Young & Donaldson, of Knoxville, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

The Prudential Coal Company was indicted for a violation of Acts 1913 (1st Ex. Sess.) ch. 29, in that it, being the operator of a commissary, unlawfully and willfully failed and refused to pay to one of its employés wages, balance then due him in lawful money, after deducting from his wages all amounts furnished him in the way of cash, supplies, rents, etc., according to statute.

The trial judge sustained a demurrer to the indictment, which demurrer impeached the statute as unconstitutional because in violation of Constitution 1870, art. 1, § 18: "The Legislature shall pass no law authorizing imprisonment for debt in civil cases."

The state has appealed and assigned errors.

The statute under test provides that all corporations doing business within this state which shall employ any salesmen, mechanics, laborers, and which operate a commissary or supply store in connection with their business, shall pay the wages, balance then due such employé, in lawful money semimonthly on the fifteenth and thirtieth of each month, after deductions for advancements have been made.

It is provided in the second section of the statute that a violation of the first section, above outlined, shall be a misdemeanor punishable by fine therein set forth. Imprisonment is not in terms provided to be imposed.

The question thus raised is ruled, in principle, by the case of State v. Paint Rock Coal Co., 92 Tenn. (8 Pickle) 81, 20 S. W. 499, 36 Am. St. Rep. 68, in which a statute was held unconstitutional which provided that it should be a misdemeanor for any person, firm or corporation to refuse to cash or redeem, in lawful currency, any check or scrip within 30 days of issuance, and that, upon conviction, a prescribed fine should be imposed.

The court, after remarking upon the fact that it was not for any fraudulent intent of the person or corporation issuing the check or scrip that he or it was sought to be thus punished, said:

"The act of the Legislature in question, while not directly authorizing imprisonment for debt, does attempt to create a crime for the nonpayment of debts evidenced by check, scrip, or order, and for such crime provides a penalty, which may or may not be followed by imprisonment. In that way and for that reason the act is violative of the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitutional...