Terre Haute & I.R. Co. v. Baker

• Decision Date: 02 March 1892
• Citation: 30 N.E. 431,4 Ind.App. 66
• Parties: TERRE HAUTE & I. R. CO. v. BAKER.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

4 Ind.App. 66

30 N.E. 431

TERRE HAUTE & I. R. CO.

v.BAKER.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

March 2, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, White county; E. P. HAMMOND, Judge.

Action by John T. Baker against the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Company to recover for work and labor. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.J. G. Williams and Bayless & Guenther, for appellant.

REINHARD, J.

Action by the appellee against the appellant in the Carroll circuit court; joinder of issues, trial by the court, and finding for appellee; cause appealed to the supreme court, where it was reversed and remanded. Railroad Co. v. Baker, 122 Ind. 433, 24 N. E. Rep. 83. Change of venue to White circuit court, trial by court, finding and judgment for appellee. The issues were fully stated by the supreme court on the first appeal, and they remain unchanged. Several errors have been assigned, but we will address our attention to such only as have been discussed in appellant's brief.

It is argued, in the first place, that the finding is excessive, in that the court allowed both the statutory penalty and attorney's fee, besides the principal and interest due. The account sued on was for work and labor against a railroad company. It is urged that the act which provides these penalties for failure to pay within specified time has reference to mining and manufacturing companies only, and cannot be applied to railroad corporations. Elliott, Supp. § 1599 et seq. But we think the penalty and attorney's fees allowed may be recovered under another statute from that to which counsel have cited us. Id. §§ 1596-1598. It is provided in this act that every company, corporation, or association now existing or hereafter organized shall, in the absence of any written contract to the contrary, be required to make full settlement with and full payment in money to its employes engaged in manual or mechanical labor, for such work and labor done for the company, at least once in every calendar month, and, failing to do so, shall be liable to a penalty of one dollar for each succeeding day, with reasonable attorney's fees in case of suit, etc. We are of opinion that the penalty and attorney's fees allowed by the court are fully covered by the statute last above cited.

Appellant's counsel say that their principal defense consists in the facts pleaded in the third paragraph of the answer. This paragraph sets up a claim against appellee which it is alleged it was...