{ "id": 8725687, "name": "Gray v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.", "name_abbreviation": "Gray v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.", "decision_date": "1946-12-23", "docket_number": "4-8035", "first_page": "995", "last_page": "999", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 Ark. 995" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "198 S.W.2d 508" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "201 Ark. 723", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724007 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/201/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S. W. 2d 214", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 Ark. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1425604 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/189/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 A. L. R. 899", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 S. W. 2d 1089", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Ark. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1399969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/176/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S. W. 266", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Ark. 677", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 S. W. 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 Ark. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1570022 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/136/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 L. R. A. 831", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "13 S. W. 723", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1911672 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/53/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900554 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ark. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1864494 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/25/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 490, "char_count": 7456, "ocr_confidence": 0.479, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.02114797974916e-08, "percentile": 0.46485702448289457 }, "sha256": "64b976216c99c4bf6881fe2f51e9f059c07bb095b2aa61eb5e5abb82e307815c", "simhash": "1:3652acff46015760", "word_count": 1331 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:55.346799+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Gray v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robins, J.\nAppellant brought this suit to recover from appellee $1,602.67, which he claimed as \u201creasonable compensation\u201d for certain overtime work. By amendment to his complaint he averred that he did not seek the benefit of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, that his contract was not in writing and that he could not state the name of the representative with whom he had made his contract of employment.\nThe answer was a general denial.\nThe case was tried- before the lower court, a jury being waived. The evidence disclosed that about October 9, 1941, appellant was employed by appellee as \u201czone foreman\u201d at the ordnance plant at Jacksonville, Arkansas, at a weekly salary of $70. On November 24, 1941, he was promoted to the position of \u201carea supervisor\u201d at a weekly salary of $80, which was, on February 2, 1942, increased to $85 per week, and on March 16, 1942, was increased to $95 per week. He. was paid each week by check on the back of wliicb, immediately above appellant\u2019s endorsement, there was printed the following: \u201cEndorsement of this check by payee constitutes a receipt in full of the sum appearing under the head of net amount due for wages covering the period and class of work performed as shown on the face of this check.\u201d\nAppellant\u2019s version of the employment agreement was as follows: \u201cI talked to Mr. Green and at first \u2014 the day I went out there I didn\u2019t accept \u2014 or didn\u2019t put in an application for employment for the reason that it was sev\u00e9nty dollars a week and they told me it was only forty hours a week and later on they thought the workTiours would be increased and our pay accordingly and I told him I would let him know the nest day and the next morning on those bases, being here near home and all, I decided I would accept all those conditions and I went back out and Crowley got me into the employment office and I filled out the regular application, showing the experience and qualifications and so forth, and as far as the contract, I didn\u2019t see any contract, any written contract, just an application for employment and I was accepted, notified immediately it was acceptable and I reported to Mr. Crowley and Mr. Green. . . . Q. Did anyone ever talk to you and tell you the number of hours that you were supposed to put in other than the information you got from Crowley and Green? A. No, sir. . . . Q. All right, Mr. Gray, what T .am talking about, at the time you began you had this information as to when you would check in and check out, which was eight hours! A. Yes. Q. And after that they increased the hours by notification and it was suggested you increase your hours from fifty to fifty-four, or whatever it was. Did all of your men work those hours when it was increased? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether they were paid overtime when it was increased? A. I don\u2019t think the weekly men were; the hourly men were. Q. The laborers were paid overtime? A. Carpenters. Q. And you men who were construction foremen were not paid for overtime'; is that right? A. Yes.\u201d\nAppellant admitted signing what was designated as an \u201cAssignment Authority\u201d at the time he began work. This instrument was addressed to appellant, signed by appellee and the body of it was as follows: \u201cYou are to report for work at once to J. J. Green, Foreman in area, General, as Zone Foreman, Rate, $70 per week.\u201d\nAppellant introduced as a witness Frank Whittle, who was in charge of appellee\u2019s Little Rock office. This appears in his testimony: \u201cQ. What was the salary rate that he was employed, Mr. Whittle1? A. Seventy dollars a week for seven day week.\u201d\nMr. Roy H. Donnell, witness for appellee, introduced a record showing the actual number of hours appellant worked, which was, in some instances, more than forty hours per week, and further showing that as to several weeks, when appellant worked for only part of a week, he was paid less than $70, the calculation for his pay apparently having been made on the basis of forty hours for a week\u2019s work. \u00bb\nIn testifying in rebuttal appellant stated: \u201cQ. Mr. Gray, there has been .'introduced in evidence \u2014 .1 don?t know what to call this \u2014 Exhibit \u20184\u2019 \u2014 which purports to show the names of certain employees, including your own, the base salary and the base hours per week in which you are classified under a symbol marked \u2018A\u2019 and the testimony is to the effect that that classification given to you meant that you were subject to call seven days a week. Please state if you ever had any information substantially to that effect at the time or before or since your termination with the defendant in this case. A. I didn\u2019t have any information at all to that effect at the time I was hired in and for quite-a while after. . . . Q. The information, was it just limited to the fact that you were not supposed'to get any pay for any overtime? A. That is right. Q. Were you informed at that time, as stated here by the witness, that you were subject to call seven days a week, if they wanted to require it every day of the week? A. Not when I hired in, no, sir.\u2019 \u2019\nThe lower court made findings of faqt to the effect that appellant was employed for a work week of unspecified hours and that by accepting the weekly salaxy checks appellant \u201cacquiesced in or ratified the work week of unlimited hours.\u201d On these findings of fact the lower court made conclusions of law that acceptance by appellant of the weekly salary checks constituted \u201cfull accord and satisfaction\u201d and by reason thereof appellant was estopped from claiming further compensation.\nFor reversal \"appellant argues that the defense of accord and satisfaction was not available because it was not pleaded by appellee and further that the evidence was not sufficient to establish such defense. We do,not find it necessary to determine whether either of these contentions of appellant is well founded.\nAppellant had the burden to show that his contract of employment was for a work week of forty hours, with the right on his part to additional compensation for overtime. The lower court, in its first finding of fact, found against appellant as to this essential element of his case. This finding, not being without support in the testimony, has the conclusive effect of a jury verdict. Obermier, Freidlander & Co. v. Core, Thompson & Co., 25 Ark. 562; Bell & Carlton v. Welch, 38 Ark. 139; Jones v. Glidewell, 53 Ark. 161, 13 S. W. 723, 7 L. R. A. 831; Dixon-Rogers Trading Company v. O. O. Scroggins & Company, 136 Ark. 33, 206 S. W. 49; Connelly v. Swilling, 167 Ark. 677, 266 S. W. 266; Johnson v. Spangler, 176 Ark. 328, 2 S. W. 2d 1089, 59 A. L. R. 899; Harvell v. Matthews, 189 Ark. 356, 72 S. W. 2d 214; Friedman v. Short, 201 Ark. 723, 147 S. W. 2d 11.\nSince, according to the lower court\u2019s finding, appellant failed to establish any liability to him, on the part of appellee, for additional compensation, it was unnecessary for the lower court to determine whether the defense of accord and satisfaction was available or was sustained by the evidence; nor is it necessan7 for us to consider these questions here.\nThe judgment of the lower court is affirmed.\nThe Chief Justice did not participate in the determination of this case nor attend that part of the Court\u2019s conference at which the appeal was discussed and decided.", "type": "majority", "author": "Robins, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "U. A. Gentry, for appellant.", "James T. Gooch and Warren E. Wood and Griffin Smith, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Gray v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.\n4-8035\n198 S. W. 2d 508\nOpinion delivered December 23, 1946.\nU. A. Gentry, for appellant.\nJames T. Gooch and Warren E. Wood and Griffin Smith, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0995-01", "first_page_order": 1011, "last_page_order": 1015 }