Peters v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I. A laborer employed by a sub-contractor is not entitled to the benefit of the statute. The object of the notice required is that the company may be enabled to protect itself against the contractor in case he fails to pay his hands. This object would be defeated by holding that the hands of a sub-contractor were entitled to this remedy.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. I. A laborer employed by a sub-contractor is not entitled to the benefit of the statute. The object of the notice required is that the company may be enabled to protect itself against the contractor in case he fails to pay his hands. This object would be defeated by holding that the hands of a sub-contractor were entitled to this remedy. The word “ contractor,” by which must be intended the contractor with the company, is alone made use of in the statute. Had the legislature intended to enlarge the remedy so as to embrace employees of a…
1Opinion of the CourtRtlaND, Judge
This case was before this court at our March term, in the year 1856, and was then reversed and remanded. (23 Mo. 107.) The decision then given does not expressly embrace some of the points now raised. We shall then proceed to notice them. The plaintiff in error, that is, the Railroad Company,contends that a laborer employed by a sub-contractor is not entitled to the benefit of the statute. This point has been ruled otherwise in New York, and our statute is a literal copy, so far as the 12th section is concerned, of the New York act. We are fully satisfied with the construction given by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Walker v. MauroSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Peters v. St. Louis & Iron Mountain RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Webb v. Morgan, McClung & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by6 opinions
- Siever v. Klots Throwing Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1926
- Fruin-Bambrick Construction Co. v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Gilmore v. WestermanWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- D. L. Wells & Co. v. MehlSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Philbrick & Nicholson, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.