{ "id": 1529052, "name": "Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company v. Reaves", "name_abbreviation": "Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. Reaves", "decision_date": "1907-02-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "377", "last_page": "381", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ark. 377" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "52 Ark. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913327 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Fed. 944", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6734539 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/84/0944-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 571, "char_count": 9545, "ocr_confidence": 0.606, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.003000894812862e-07, "percentile": 0.9542903852695659 }, "sha256": "3335c6f5552f237b8737dadd07279bc865c7fb689821013890224d73ea6bc223", "simhash": "1:a28f774be8ed7158", "word_count": 1676 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:32.340981+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company v. Reaves." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Riddick, J.\nThis is an action by a laborer against a corporation to recover a balance due him for wages and the penalty imposed by statute upon a corporation for failing -to pay the wages of a discharged employee within seven days from his discharge. On the first hearing of this case a majority of the \u25a0court were of the opinion that the plaintiff made out a case .against the company for at least a part of the amount claimed, but a further consideration of the case has convinced us that under the facts proved no recovery of a penalty can be allowed.\nThe facts in the case are as follows: W. O. Reaves, a laborer employed by the Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company at wages of $1.75 per day to work in the woods, was discharged on the 9th of May, 1905. H-e demanded his pay, and thereupon the foreman of the woods gang gave him two identification checks, one for 'the labor he performed in the month of April which was due and payable on the 13th of May, that being the monthly pay day of the company; the other was for the work \u2019 he had performed in May up to the date of his discharge.\nSome time before noon of the 13th of May Reaves went to the office of the company and presented the checks at the window of the paymaster, but he was told by the paymaster that he would have/to wait until the afternoon when the woods crew would be paid. Reaves replied that he had come from the country in a wagon and could not wait, that he.had been discharged and wanted his money, but payment was refused, and Reaves left. On the 5th day of June he went to the office again and presented the identification check for his April wages and was paid. He did not present the check for his May wages, and the paymaster did not recall at that time that he had been discharged, and that there were wages due him for work in May,\nAfterwards Reaves brought this action against the company to recover the wages due him for work in May and for a penalty of, $1.75 per day on account of the failure of the company to pay'the wages within the seven days after his discharge as required by statute.\nThe statute declares that where a servant or employee of a corporation is .discharge^.the .unpaid, ytfages of such servant or employee.,shall ibpcprpe dppioq.Jihe 4ay ,of.his 4fscharg,e... Apts of 1905, c. 210, p. 538. The act further provides as follows: \u201cAny such servant' or \u2018 employed Who shall her\u00ed\u00e9\u00e1ft\u00e9r be discharged or refused f\u00fcfth\u00e9r employment may'request :b.r'demand the payment di any wag\u00e9s d\u00fce, aiid'if not paid Within s\u00e9ven days from, such'discharge or refusal't\u00f3 I\u00f3ng\u00e9r '\u00e9\u00ed\u00f1ploy th\u00e9h th\u00e9 p\u00e9ti-' alfies her\u00e9iribef\u00f3fe pfbvid\u00e9d'f\u00f3P'r\u00e1ilway \u00e9rhpldy\u00e9eS 'Shall \u00e1tt\u00e1t\u00edh?\u201d\nNow,\" \u00e1s' the wages' b'f \u2018\u00e1' laborer'becorii\u00e9 flue iih'd'er'the' act as sooii \u00e1s he is1 dischkfg\u00e9d, it se\u00e9his db >\u00fcs flhkt' -under this statute he has the right to dem\u00e1fid his wages at once after he is discharged. He may even bring suit to recover them if rlbt paid oh demand after his discharge. But, in order 10' protect' the 'employ\u00e9es of' corporations,' 'many* of Whbm ate day lahof\u00e9rs ' and \u2018\u2019dhp\u00e9'nden't ori' 'th\u00e9ir' dailjh Wag\u00e9s for Support'' and m\u00e1inteiiahce, and who at\u00e9 \u2018 not! in'\u2018\u00e1 pbsitf\u00f3'ri to erit\u00e9r :ihto expensive 'litigation, 'the \"law s\u00e9\u00e9ks- i\u00f3 corrip\u00e9l p\u00e1yriieht 'without suit by making it to the interest of the corporation to promptly pay the' urip\u00e1id\" wag\u00e9S: of the discharged \u00e9h\u00edpldyee. I-F\u00f3r this pulp\u00f3se it provides'that,' if after\"ddinand'Such Wages are'not p\u00e1id Witihrii\"\u00e1\u00e9v\u00e9n d\u00e1ys ffbhi' the'date'of'dischangfe,\"the 'Wagesdf the em-pl\u00f3y\u00e9fe! shall c'\u00f3ht\u00edhti\u00e9' frbhi the' 'dat\u00e9 \u2019o'h'tke discharge until paid.\nUhdef the s\u00edktut\u00e9 ' the unpaid'Wages df Reaves became dii\u00e9 ort the day of hi\u00e1 'd\u00ed&cK\u00e1\u2019rg\u00e9. He 'demanded pay, and was given\u2019id\u00e9ntl\u00f1cati-\u00f3ri!'checks to be\u2019presented'*to''the\u2018paymaster bf th\u00e9 cbhipa\u00f1y. H\u00e9 'p\u00ed\u00e9sfeht\u00e9d'th'\u00e9se'\u00f3h'\u00e9tks tel the\u2019paymaster and dehdat\u00edid\u00e9d' p\u00e1yfhet\u00edt,' blit the paymast'\u00e9\u00ed t\u00f3lfl' h'i\u00edm\u2019 that he would pay him that aft\u00e9f\u00f1don.' 'Th\u00e9'fe\u00e1son' die p\u00e1ymast\u00e9r desired to Wait \u00fahtil the aft\u00e9raboh'before'making the''payment was that h'\u00e9 desired' to see'the foreman of the woods'1 cr'eW tb as'oertaih if th\u00e9r\u00e9 were \u00e1ny charg\u00e9s agaiiist Reaves on the bodies. B\u00fct Reaves had'befen discharged \u00e1b\u00f3\u00edlt 'fbuir daps previous to''the' tibie h\u00e9 m\u00e1de 'kppli'cat\u00edbm'fof'hiS p\u00e1yrribhf. \"So sbd\u00dc'\u00e1S he w\u00e1s discharged his aPc\u00f3U\u00f1tS',shb\u00fcl'd' h\u00e1v\u00e9' befen'b\u00e1lah-b'edj add When he demanded1 hist pay -he sh'duld. h\u2019av\u00e9 b\u00e9en'paidv We skid in the f\u00f3rm\u00e9r opini\u00f3n that Reavfes,\"'aft\u00e9r riiakmg' this1 d\u00e9rn\u00e1nd, had done all'the 'statute required.'of 'him, and1 that h\u00e9\u2019Was ndt coriip\u00e9ll\u00e9t\u00ed'tb'wait sfev\u00e9r\u00e1l ho\u00fcr's\u2019 t\u00f3AtiiNthe'cbhv\u00e9hi\u00e9nefe'-of th\u00e9 p\u00e1y-1 m\u00e1stef wh'\u00e9hdt\u2018Was1,Incdnveni\u00e9nf fdBhi'mbtb d:\u00f3'\u2019s\u00f3\u2019.'! * ..........\niB.\u00fct,\u2019 While RfekVes\u2019 Was'Uhd\u00e9f lid1 dt\u00edt\u00ed\u00bfafkt\u00f3s' t\u00f3: Wait, yet the sevefl- flaps \u00e1ll\u00f3wfefl'th\u00e9 d\u00f3mpan^'by'the'\u2018statute before the penalty for non-payment attached had not then expired; and a further consideration of the matter has convinced us that, as Reaves could not wait, he should either have notified the paymaster to send his pay to some convenient postofiice or express office, or should have called for his pay at another time. As he went away without giving any directions to the paymaster to send the amount of his wages to another point, t)he company was justified in supposing that he would call or send to its office for the amount due. ' As he neither directed the company to send his wages to his new place of residence nor called for it again at the expiration of the seven days, we do not think any penalty attached, for the evidence shows that the company has at all times since the expiration of the seven days been ready and willing to pay the wages of plaintiff, and has held the same subject to his order.\nOn the 5th day of June, 27 days after he had been discharged, Reaves went again to the office of the paymaster and presented the check for his April wages and was paid. He did not take with him or present the check for his May wages, and it did not occur to the cashier that the company owed him wages for May. It is clear from the evidence that if Reaves had presented his check for May it would have been paid .also. His demand for the payment of his wages, accompanied by a presentation of the check for April only, was equivalent to saying that this was all he wanted at that time. This misled the cashier into believing that the amount of the check presented was all that was due. The statute was as before stated to protect laborers, and was not intended to be used to entrap the employer for the recovery of a penalty. As the actions of Reaves on this occasion plainly show that he did not desire that the company should pay his May wages, as he misled the company by demanding his April wages only, we think he is in the same position as if he had in fact requested it not to pay the wages for May. But for this.conduct of Reaves he would have been paid in full on the 5th day of June, and he has no right to claim a penalty after that date. He held back the May check in order to found an action for a penalty upon the failure of the company to pay. But, as before stated, he has no right to demand of the company a penalty for an act brought about by his own conduct.\nThe .essentia] facts in this case are not disputed, and we see no occasion to go into a discussion of the instructions given by the court. After a careful consideration of the evidence, we are, as \u2018before stated, of the opinion that the plaintiff did not make out a case for t)he recovery of a penalty. The judgment will therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new ' trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Riddick, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "N. P. Richmond and H. Berger, for appellant.", "H. B. Means, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company v. Reaves.\nOpinion delivered February 11, 1907.\n1. Master and servant \u2014 penalty eor nonpayment of wages. \u2014 Under Acts 1905, c. 210, providing that \u201cany such servants or employees who shall hereafter be discharged or refused further payment may request or demand the payment of any wages due, and if not paid within seven days from such discharge or refusal to longer employ then the penalties hereinbefore provided for railway employees shall attach,\u201d held, that where a discharged employee neither called for his pay after expiration of the seven days, nor notified the employer where to send his pay check, he was not entitled to recover the statutory penalty. (Page 379.)\n2. Same \u2014 necessity op demand for wages. \u2014 Where a discharged employee was entitled to receive pay for work in April and May, and demanded pay only for April, he can not recover the statutory penalty for his May wages. (Page 380.)\nAppeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court; Alexander M. DuMe, Judge;\nmodified and affirmed.\nN. P. Richmond and H. Berger, for appellant.\n1. The verdict is not sustained by the evidence. It was appellee\u2019s own fault that his May check was not paid, and under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6650, he cannot recover.\n2. It was error to submit to the jury the question as to the reasonableness of the company\u2019s rules in paying off the Woods crew on the afternoon of pay day. This was a matter of law. 73 Ark. 298; 84 Fed. 944. See also 1 Thompson on Trials, \u00a7 1057; 52 Ark. 406; id. 134; 58 id. 324.\nH. B. Means, for appellee.\nI. Only one demand was necessary for the wages due. Acts 1905, p. 528. He was discharged, no longer an employee, and not subject to the rules of the company.\n2. There is -no error in the instructions.\n3. If it was error to submit the question as to the reasonableness of the rules to the jury, it was error in favor of the appellant, as the act points out how a discharged employee shall be paid." }, "file_name": "0377-01", "first_page_order": 397, "last_page_order": 401 }