Zappas ex rel. Shereopulos v. Roumeliote
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Woodbury District. Court. — Hon. David Mould, Judge. The facts are stated in the .opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwin, J.
The plaintiff, a minor, was employed by the defendant in his shoe-shining emporium. He worked under a salary contract, and the wages agreed upon were paid him. During the two years of his service for the defendant, however, he was given tips by customers whose work he had done, and these daily tips were turned over to the defendant each night. This action was brought to recover back such tips. The case was tried to a jury,'and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered, and the defendant appeals. Two defenses were interposed by the defendant: First, that there…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Anders v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- In Re FarbCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Harrison v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1941
- Pickett v. Union Terminal Co.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.