Legal Opinion

Alden Mills v. Pendergraft

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1928No. 26891PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, C. J.

The appellant is a corporation operating a hosiery mill which runs both night and day. J. Samuel Goldman is its day foreman, and Alpha E. Burt is its night foreman. Both Goldman and Burt are authorized to employ and discharge laborers, and Goldman, but not Burt, is authorized to determine their wages. Pendergraft was an employee of the mill, working on the night shift. On the night of the 7th of October, 1926, Pendergraft and several other of the appellant’s employees decided to, and informed Burt that they wóuld, leave the appellant’s employ unless their wages were raised. Burt advised them…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Davis v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Richberger v. American Express Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Hines v. GreenMississippi Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Natchez, C. M.R. Co. v. BoydMississippi Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Georgia Cas. Co. v. Alden MillsMississippi Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. WattsMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Mabus v. St. James Episcopal ChurchMississippi Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. CreekmoreMississippi Supreme Court · 1945

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

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

Powered by the Exa API