Stinson v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 28 January 1941 |
| Citation | 17 A.2d 760 |
| Parties | STINSON v. TAYLOR, Commissioner of Labor. In re WAGE BOARD. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Kennebec County.
Action by Jesse W. Taylor, Commissioner of Labor, to enforce minimum fair wage rates established by a wage board for women and minors employed in the fish packing industry. From a decision of a justice of the Superior Court, denying a petition by Calvin L. Stinson for a stay of proceedings and affirming the rates, petitioner appeals.
Appeal sustained, and case remanded for dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
Argued before STURGIS, C. T., and THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, WORSTER, and MURCHIE, JJ.
Blaisdell & Blaisdell, of Ellsworth, for appellant.
Franz U. Burkett, Atty. Gen., and John S. S. Fessenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Wage Board.
This is an appeal from the decision of a justice of the Superior Court in an action brought by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to enforce the minimum fair wage rates established for women and minors employed in the Fish Packing Industry of Maine.
An incomplete record shows that on March 21, 1940, a Wage Board appointed and acting under the provisions of Chapter 289, Public Laws 1939, filed with the Commissioner of Labor and Industry its report, findings and determinations as to minimum fair wage rates to be paid women and minors employed in the Industry of Packing of Fish and Fish Products, and the Commissioner, having made service thereof as required by law, on April 26, 1940, instituted court action to enforce the rates. A petition for stay of proceedings and hearing having been filed, the justice of the Superior Court to whom it was presented denied the stay and affirmed the rates. The petitioner appealed.
Authority for the action taken by the Commissioner is found in Section 12 of the Act, which reads:
The language of the Legislature in enacting Section 12 of this Wage Act, as it may be termed, is clear and unambiguous. The failure of an employer in the Fish Packing Industry for two months to pay the minimum fair wage rates reported by a Wage Board is expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desmond v. Persina
...whether the parties have raised the jurisdictional issue or not. Green v. State, Me., 245 A.2d 147, 150 (1968); Stinson v. Taylor, 137 Me. 332, 17 A.2d 760 (1941); Cushman Co. v. Mackesy, 135 Me. 490, 492, 200 A. 505 This Court has held that, although the Declaratory Judgments Act expands t......
-
Walsh v. City of Brewer
...is always open at any stage of the proceedings. Cushman Co. et al. v. Mackesy et al., 135 Me. 490, 200 A. 505 (1938); Stinson v. Taylor, 137 Me. 332, 17 A.2d 760 (1941); and Green v. State, Me., 245 A.2d 147 (1968). See: Frost v. Lucey, Me., 231 A.2d 441, 446 Because of this unique feature-......
-
Higgins v. Robbins
...Eastern Maine Elec. Coop. v. Maine Yankee Atom. P. Co., Me.,225 A.2d 414; Hutchins v. Hutchins, 136 Me. 513, 4 A.2d 679; Stinson v. Taylor, 137 Me. 332, 17 A.2d 760; Angell v. Gilman, 144 Me. 202, 67 A.2d 15; M.R.C.P. Rule 12(h)(3); 1 F.McK. & W.Me.Civ.Pr.2d § Law Court #970-Declaratory Jud......
-
Dillon v. Johnson
...discussed. The Law Court may always note matters involving its own jurisdiction. Look v. State, 267 A.2d 907 (Me.1970); Stinson v. Taylor, 137 Me. 332, 17 A.2d 760 (1941); Darling Automobile Co. v. Hall, 135 Me. 382, 197 A. 558 Should we reach and decide the issue reported, absent jurisdict......