Legal Opinion

Chambers v. W. L. Florence Construction Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 16, 1945No. 31041PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.

If it may be conceded that the plaintiff was a laborer within the meaning of the act in question, and was thereby entitled to the specifications of wages for overtime and Sundays, still he would not be entitled to recover under count 1 of this petition for the reason that he did not bring himself under the provisions of the act (40 U. S. C. A., §§ 276, 276 a-1), as contained in the contract under article 17, section a, as follows: “All mechanics and laborers employed directly upon the site of the work.” The evidence shows that the plaintiff worked on a different site from 300 yards to a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Willingham Sash & Door Co. v. DrewSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  2. Williams v. Western & Atlantic RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  3. Coleman v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Kentucky · 1897
  4. Herrington v. SpellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  5. Jones v. DeKalb Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1925

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kitchens v. LeeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1952
  2. Harrington v. Empire Const. Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1947
  3. Chambers v. W. L. Florence Const Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API