Steltzer v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 10 February 1912
• Citation: 134 N.W. 573,156 Iowa 1
• Parties: HARRY I. STELTZER v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

134 N.W. 573

156 Iowa 1

HARRY I. STELTZER v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 10, 1912

Appeal from Perry Superior Court.--HON. JOHN SHORTLEY, Judge.

SUIT to recover on assignments of wages. The cause was tried in equity, and both parties appeal. The defendant will be designated as the appellant. Affirmed on plaintiff's appeal, and reversed on appeal by defendant.

Affirmed on plaintiff's appeal, and reversed on the defendant's appeal.

J. C Cook, J. N. Hughes, and C. R. Sutherland for appellant.

H. S Dugan, G. J. Dugan, and W. W. Cardell for appellee.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff sued on assignments of wages to be earned in the future by men in the employ of the defendant railway company the assignments having been made to the plaintiff to secure indebtedness to him. All of the men making these assignments entered into the employ of the railway company under written contracts, the material part of which is as follows: "In consideration of my being employed by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, and to enable me to receive credit for board, meals and lodging while I am in its employ, I hereby agree and consent that the said Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company may deduct and withhold from my wages any and all sums that may be due or owing from me to any and all persons for board, meals or lodging, and that it may pay the same for me and on my account and deduct the amount so paid or so required from any and all wages due me at any time."

The defendant pleaded that it was necessary, and for many years had been the custom of defendant, to secure credit for its employees engaged in the operation of its trains to enable them to secure meals, meal tickets, board, and lodging while away from home and engaged in the line of their employment; that arrangements were made whereby employees could secure meal tickets, board, and lodging, etc.; and that the contracts set out herein were made with employees, including those making the assignments to the plaintiff. The assignments in question were all made after the contracts with the defendant were entered into by the assignors thereof, and notice of such assignments were left with the defendant's local agent at Perry. Pursuant to its contract with the employees in question, the defendant paid their bills, and deducted the amounts thereof from their wages as long as they continued in its employ. The evidence shows that these employees did not intend that their assignments to the plaintiff should act as a revocation of authority given the defendant in their contracts, because they still relied upon the defendant to secure them board and lodging and requested that deductions from their wages be made therefor. Whether these contracts be designated assignments of so much of the wages of the employees as was necessary to feed and house the employees when away from home in the service of the company, or whether they be termed contracts under which the defendant had the right to pay the debts of the employee, is not of great importance. In either view of the matter, if it was a valid and enforceable agreement that was acted upon by the defendant, the plaintiff has no right superior to that of the defendant.

In our judgment, the contracts were not unilateral as claimed by the plaintiff; nor was the employees' agreement a mere license or privilege without consideration. It became effective when the employee entered the service...