Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., Civil Action No. 3364.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1943 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3364. |
| Citation | 52 F. Supp. 670 |
| Parties | WALLING, Adm'r of Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Dept. of Labor, v. RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Douglas B. Maggs, Sol., and Irving J. Levy, Associate Sol., both of Washington, D. C., and John K. Carroll, Regional Atty., Irving Rozen, Sr. Atty., and Samuel Collins, Asst. Atty., United States Department of Labor, all of New York City, for plaintiff.
E. John Ernst, of New York City, for defendant.
L. Metcalfe Walling, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor, the plaintiff, has made a motion herein to strike the defendant's demand for a trial by jury, indorsed upon the defendant's answer, upon the ground that there are no issues in this action triable of right by a jury under the Constitution or Statutes of the United States.
This action, which is one for an injunction, was brought under Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 217, to restrain the defendant from violation of Section 15 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 215. Defendant has demanded a trial by jury of the issues.
The defendant is not entitled in an action of this character to a trial by jury as a matter of right. See Fleming v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Company, Inc., D.C., 38 F.Supp. 1001; Fleming v. Sandhill Furniture Company, Inc., (D.C.N.D., N.C., Rockingham Div., Feb. 13, 1942).1
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. Equity actions were not affected by the Seventh Amendment.
Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, this action would be designated as an action in equity. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the defendant would not be entitled to a jury trial as of right in an action of this character. No changes in that respect have been made by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rules 38 and 39. See Friedman v. Boyarer et al., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 376; Taylor v. McKeever, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 565.
The Court, in its discretion, in an action of this character could impanel a jury to inquire into the facts. The determination of the jury would not be binding upon the Court but merely advisory.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolished the procedural differences between actions at law and actions in equity but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wirtz v. Alapaha Yellow Pine Products, Inc., Civ. A. No. 593.
...are not entitled to trial by jury. Fleming v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., 38 F.Supp. 1001, (W.D.La.1941); Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., Inc., 52 F.Supp. 670, (E.D.N.Y.1943); Tobin v. Pirchesky, 101 F.Supp. 484 (W.D.Pa. 1951). As long ago as 1830 Mr. Justice Story, writing for the Supre......
-
Olearchick v. American Steel Foundries
...the reason the relief claimed is equitable in nature. Fleming v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., D.C., 38 F.Supp. 1001, Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., D.C., 52 F. Supp. 670; Fleming v. Sand Hill Furnature Co., In each of the cases now being considered by the Court there has been no claim fo......
-
Wirtz v. BOB ADAIR, INC.
...relief only was sought there was no right to a jury trial. See Olearchick v. American Steel Foundries, supra; Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., E.D.N.Y., 52 F.Supp. 670; Fleming v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., W.D.La., 38 F.Supp. 1001; 5 Moore, op. cit., p. 209.6 During the pre-1949 amendme......
-
Marshall v. Elm Hill, Inc.
...enforcement proceeding. See Mitchell v. All-States Business Products Corp., 232 F.Supp. 624 (E.D.N.Y.1964) and Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., 52 F.Supp. 670 (E.D.N.Y.1943), aff'd on other grounds, 154 F.2d 780 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 870, 66 S.Ct. 1383, 90 L.Ed. 1640 The Se......