Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; As this is a suit for a penalty under the act of 1905, p. 538, and the seven days allowed by law had not expired, there could De no recovery. 82 Ark. 378. The instructions of the court are correct. 82 Ark. 378. Fielding was of age, and responsible for costs. 66 Ark. 418. A clear case was made under the provisions of the act.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge; As this is a suit for a penalty under the act of 1905, p. 538, and the seven days allowed by law had not expired, there could De no recovery. 82 Ark. 378. The instructions of the court are correct. 82 Ark. 378. Fielding was of age, and responsible for costs. 66 Ark. 418. A clear case was made under the provisions of the act. Acts 1905, Page S38- Where payment is refused on demand, the company assume the burden of seeing that the laborer is paid his wages or offered payment at the expiration of the seven days.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is a suit by C. F. Thompson and J. M. Fielding against Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company to recover the penalty imposed by statute upon corporations for failing to pay the wages of discharged employees within seven days from their discharge. Acts of 1905, p. 538.
'Separate suits were brought, but the cases were consolidated by order of the court and tried at the same time. There was a jury trial and verdict for the plaintiffs, and defendant has appealed.
The essential facts in this case are the same as those in the case of Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company v. Reaves, 82 Ark. 377, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. ReavesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by2 opinions
- McCoy-Couch Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. ZahringerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. WarrenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924