Taylor v. Beatty
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 254, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 70, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Sarah Jane Taylor v. James Beatty, Administrator of Samuel Beatty, deceased. Assumpsit for wages. Before Weand, J. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit which it subsequently refused to take off. Error assigned was in refusing to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
There are two questions in this case: (1) Was the plaintiff a servant within the ruling that her services were presumed to have been paid periodically, and (2) if so, was the presumption rebutted by the facts disclosed by the testimony in the case ?
1. Samuel Beatty, the original defendant in this action, lived in a rural part of Montgomery county, and kept a hotel there. The plaintiff entered his service on September 19,1885, and left it on September 1, 1892. She claims that he contracted to pay her compensation at the rate of $5.00 a week for an indefinite…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carpenter v. HaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- McConnell's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Edgecomb v. . BuckhoutNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Houck's Executors v. HouckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1882
- Coulston's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
3Cited by9 opinions
- Witten v. StoutSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Muir v. Preferred Accident InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Winfield v. Beaver Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Ridgway Grain Co. v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
- Schrader v. BeattySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.