Boniface v. Scott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas o.f Allegheny county. The single question in this case was,'whether the wages of a bar-keeper in a tavern are to be considered asservants’ wages, so as to entitle him to a preference under the intestate law. of the 19th April, 1794, sect.14. . ' Courts have restricted the term “ servants” used in the act, to persons employed in the house, and about the intestate’s person.
Read the full summary
In Error. ERROR to the Common Pleas o.f Allegheny county. The single question in this case was,'whether the wages of a bar-keeper in a tavern are to be considered asservants’ wages, so as to entitle him to a preference under the intestate law. of the 19th April, 1794, sect.14. . ' Courts have restricted the term “ servants” used in the act, to persons employed in the house, and about the intestate’s person. The reason of the law was, that when disease had rendered the master helpless, there might be. an additional inducement to attention. The case, ex parte Meason and another, administrators…
1Opinion of the Court
Gibson J.
To restrict the operation of the act to servants in the popular sense of the word would defeat the intention of the legislature. In Pennsylvania none are called servants whose persons are not subjected to the coercion of the master, whether the business in which they are employed, be servile or not. ' No person to whom wages could be due for his services, would endure the name, as it would be considered offensive and a term of reproach. I take all who are employed for hire in the domestic concerns of the family, in whatever station they may be, to be servants entitled to a preference…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kimball v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1863