Walton v. Southern Package Corporation, 159

Decision Date03 January 1944
Docket NumberNo. 159,159
Citation88 L.Ed. 298,320 U.S. 540,64 S.Ct. 320
PartiesWALTON v. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORPORATION
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Robert L. Stern, of Washington, D.C., for Administrator of Wage & Hour Division, U.S. Dept. of Labor, as amicus curiae.

Mr. Elizabeth Hulen, of Jackson, Miss., for respondent.

Mr. Charles F. Engle, of Natchez, Miss., for petitioner.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit brought against the respondent by an employee, Fred Walton, in a Mississippi state court to recover overtime compensation and liquidated damages as authorized by Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. 1 Walton died before the case was tried and the suit was revived by his administratrix, the petitioner here. A judgment for the petitioner rendered by the trial court was reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court2 on the ground that Walton had not been employed in the production of goods for interstate commerce or in 'any process or occupation necessary to the production thereof',3 and therefore was not covered by the Act. We granted certiorari because this interpretation of the Act raised a federal question of importance and because of the claim by petitioner that the interpretation was in conflict with our decision in A. B. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638.

The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts which in brief summary showed:

The respondent operated a plant in Mississippi in which veneer was manufactured from logs. A substantial portion of the manufactured product was destined for shipment in interstate commerce. Walton worked at the plant as a night watchman. His work week ex- ceeded the maximum hours prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act during the period in question. His duties were to make hourly rounds of the plant, punch the nightwatchman's clocks at various stations on the plant, and report any fires and trespassers. The fire insurance company which insured the plant's buildings, machinery, and fixtures required respondent to have a night watchman as a condition to granting reduced premium rates. Respondent's desire to obtain these reduced rates was the primary reason why Walton was employed. The plant was not operated at night while Walton was on duty and he did not physically assist in the manufacture of shipment of veneer.

In holding that these facts fell short of proving that Walton's work was 'necessary to the production' of respondent's goods, the Mississippi Supreme Court particularly emphasized that Walton had no other duties to perform in addition to his regular duties as a night watchman; that he engaged in no manual activities connected with production; that he was not specially employed to protect goods assembled for manufacture or awaiting shipment in interstate commerce; and that no goods were manufactured during the hours he was on guard. Under our decision in the Kirschbaum, case, supra, no one of these facts standing alone, nor all of them together, can support the Court's conclusion that the nature of Walton's employment left him without the Act's protection. His duty was to aid in protecting the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Mitchell v. Molton, Allen & Williams, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • January 4, 1961
    ...62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638. 11 See Borden Co. v. Borella, 325 U.S. 679, 65 S.Ct. 1223, 89 L.Ed. 1865; Walton v. Southern Package Corp., 320 U.S. 540, 64 S.Ct. 320, 88 L.Ed. 298; Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657, 66 S.Ct. 413, 90 L.Ed. 383; Gangi v. D. A. Schulte, Inc., 2 Cir......
  • Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1944
    ...to conflict with it, such as Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S. Ct. 1116, 86 L. Ed. 1638; and Walton v. Southern Package Corp., 320 U.S. 719, 64 S. Ct. 320, 88 L. Ed. 315. We hold that the factual situation in this case is substantially the same as that considered in the Behrens......
  • Walling v. Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 8, 1944
    ...occurrence is taking place in the judicial definition of "in the production of goods for commerce" within the Act. Walton v. Southern Package Corporation, 64 S.Ct. 320; Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U. S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83; Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62......
  • Taylor v. Lumaghi Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1944
    ... ... Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 F.Supp. 936; Southern Pac ... Co. v. Industrial Acc. Comm., 19 Cal.2d 271, 120 ... 517, 62 S.Ct ... 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; and Walton v. Southern Package ... Corp., 320 U.S. 719, 64 S.Ct ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. § 776.18 Employees of Producers For Commerce
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter V. Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor Subchapter B. Statements of General Policy Or Interpretation Not Directly Related to Regulations Part 776. Interpretative Bulletin On the General Coverage of the Wage and Hours Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Subpart A. General Engaging In "The Production of Goods For Commerce"
    • January 1, 2023
    ...St., 1949 Cong. Rec., p. 15372; Kirschbaum v. Walling,316 U.S. 517; Borden Co. v. Borella,325 U.S. 679; Walton v. Southern Package Corp.320 U.S. 540; Armour & Co. v. Wantock,325 U.S. 126. 92H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15; Morris v. Beaumont Mfg. Co., 84 F. Supp. 909 (W.D. S.C.); cf. Wilson ......
  • 29 C.F.R. § 776.30 Construction Performed On Temporarily Idle Facilities
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Labor Chapter V. Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor Subchapter B. Statements of General Policy Or Interpretation Not Directly Related to Regulations Part 776. Interpretative Bulletin On the General Coverage of the Wage and Hours Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Subpart B. Construction Industry Individual Employee Coverage In the Construction Industry
    • January 1, 2023
    ...and other equipment) though performed during the inactive or dead season, is subject to the Acts. 5452 Walton v. Southern Package Corp.,320 U.S. 540; Slover v. Wathen & Co., 140 F. (2d) 258 (C.A. 4); Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F. (2d) 733; and Russell Co. v. McComb, 187 F. (2d)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT