Mocomber v. Proctor
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 19, Feb. T., 1903, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 127, on verdict for plaintiff in ease of Thomas Mocomber v. H. H. Proctor etal., trading as Proctor, Ellison & Company. Appeal from judgment of justice of the peace. Before Niles, P. J. From the record it appeared that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant before a justice of the peace for $8.44 for wages, and money retained out of wages.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 19, Feb. T., 1903, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Tioga Co., Sept. T., 1902, No. 127, on verdict for plaintiff in ease of Thomas Mocomber v. H. H. Proctor etal., trading as Proctor, Ellison & Company. Appeal from judgment of justice of the peace. Before Niles, P. J. From the record it appeared that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant before a justice of the peace for $8.44 for wages, and money retained out of wages. The defendant appealed from this judgment. The court charged in part as follows: [Now, we understand Mr. Cornelius to say there was a rule…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
The defendants were engaged in the tanning business for many years, and had in their employ a large number of persons. They also carried on a mercantile business and supplied their employees with merchandise. In the conduct of their business certain rules were enforced, one of which was as follows :
“ Each person hired with the intention of remaining in the employ of this company will be charged to come from his first day’s work fifty cents, which will be put into what is called the relief fund.. Each employee after six consecutive months’ work *486will become eligible to this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Reeside's v. ReesideSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1865
- Enterprise Oil v. National Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Flynn v. HurlockSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Daly v. DallmeyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902