Toledo v. Long
| Decision Date | 26 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 20,577.,20,577. |
| Citation | 82 N.E. 757,169 Ind. 316 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | TOLEDO, ST. L. & W. R. CO. v. LONG. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; Joseph Claybaugh, Judge.
Action by Charles J. Long against the Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Guenther & Clark, Clarence Brown, and Chas. A. Schmettan, for appellant. A. H. Boulden and Henry N. Spaan, for respondent.
This action was brought by appellee, an employé of appellant, for the recovery of wages for manual labor; also to recover penalties and attorney's fees under sections 7056, 7057 Burns' Ann. St. 1901, being sections 1 and 2, c. 21, p. 36, Acts 1885. An answer and counterclaim were filed by appellant. A trial of said cause by jury resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee for the wages, penalties, and attorney's fees; and over a motion for a new trial judgment was rendered thereon against appellant. Several of the causes for a new trial call in question the right of the appellee to recover said penalty and attorney's fees under said sections of the statute.
It is insisted by appellant that said sections 7056, 7057, supra, are in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, citing, among other authorities, the following: Railroad Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; Railroad Co. v. Moss, 60 Miss. 641;San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 4 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 324, pp. 567-576, 19 S. W. 910;Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 17 Sup. Ct. 255, 41 L. Ed. 666;Davidson v. Jennings, 27 Colo. 137, 60 Pac. 354, 48 L. R. A. 340, 83 Am. St. Rep. 49.Said sections read as follows: “Sec. 7056.- (1) That every company, corporation or association now existing, or hereafter organized and doing business in this state, shall, in the absence of a written contract to the contrary, be required to make full settlement with, and full payment in money to, its employés, engaged in manual or mechanical labor, for such work and labor done or performed by said employés for such company, corporation or association at least once in every calendar month of the year.
“Sec. 7057.-(2) If any company, corporation or association shall neglect to make such payment, such employé may demand the same of said company, corporation or association, or any agent of said company, corporation or association, upon whom summons might be issued in a suit for such wages, and if said company, corporation or association shall neglect to pay the same for thirty days thereafter, said company, corporation or association shall be liable to a penalty of one dollar for each succeeding day, to be collected by such employé in a suit (together with reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. J. B. & R. E. Walker, Inc.
...in manual or mechanical labor" at least once a month); Smith V. Ohio Oil Co., 43 Ind.App. 735, 86 N.E. 1027, affirming the position taken in Toledo, St. L. W. R. Co. V. Long, supra; State V. Martin, 193 Ind. 120, 139 N.E. 282, 26 A. L. R. 1386 (in which the penalty provision was held to ren......
-
Palmer v. Stockberger
...v. Narcowich, supra; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. State (1903), 160 Ind. 379, 66 N.E. 1005, 62 L.R.A. 136; Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co. v. Long (1907), 169 Ind. 316, 82 N.E. 757; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Ebersole (1910), 173 Ind. 332 at p. 333, 90 N.E. 608 at p. 609; Baltimore O. S. W. R. Co. v......
-
Standard Liquors v. Narcowich
...'request' or 'demand' of payment by the employee. Chicago, etc., Co. v. Ebersole, 1910, 173 Ind. 332, 90 N.E. 608; Toledo, etc., Co. v. Long, 1907, 169 Ind. 316, 82 N.E. 757; Baltimore & O., etc., v. Burdalow, 1914, 57 Ind.App. 267, 106 N.E. 902; Smith v. Ohio Oil Co., 1909, 43 Ind.App. 735......
- Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Company v. Long