Fitzgerald v. International Paper Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Assumpsit on the following account annexed: — “ International Paper Company, To Peter A. Fitzgerald, Dr. 1900. March 29, To 375 hours! labor in pulp mill at Jay to Bridge, equal 87J days of 10 hours Dec. 24. each at $1.50-1.00 per day, $56.25.” The writ also contained an omnibus count accompanied by a specification that plaintiff would offer the same evidence in support thereof as would be offered in support of the account annexed, averring that they were for the…
Read the full summary
On report. Assumpsit on the following account annexed: — “ International Paper Company, To Peter A. Fitzgerald, Dr. 1900. March 29, To 375 hours! labor in pulp mill at Jay to Bridge, equal 87J days of 10 hours Dec. 24. each at $1.50-1.00 per day, $56.25.” The writ also contained an omnibus count accompanied by a specification that plaintiff would offer the same evidence in support thereof as would be offered in support of the account annexed, averring that they were for the same cause of action. The facts appear in the opinion,
1Opinion of the CourtFogler, J.
Itevised Statutes, cli. 82, § 4 8, is as follows:
“See. 48. In all contracts for labor, ten hours of actual labor are a legal day’s work, unless the contract stipulates for a longer time; but this rule does not apply to monthly labor or to agricultural employments.”
The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendant company as a laborer in its pulp mill from March 29, 1900, to December 24, 1900, brings this action to recover payment for labor alleged to have been performed by him over hours, or in excess of ten hours per day each and every day during the entire period in which he was so employed.
T…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gallagher v. Hathaway Manufacturing Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Perlman v. Skolnick Building Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1944