Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

945

Page

Pago Texas, League V. (184 U. S. 156)... 475 United States, Chin Ying v. (United States Texas & P. R. Co. v. Callender (183 U. S. v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 0. S. 213).

629 632) 257 United States, Chin Ying v..

895 Texas & P. R, Co. v. Reiss (183 U. S. 621) 253 United States, Christie v. (185 U. S. 256) 640 Texas & P. R. Co. v. State of Louisiana 936 United States, Considine v. (184 U. S. 699) 938 Texas & P. R, Co. v. Wilder. 936 United States, De Gignac v...

941 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Wineland.

932 United States, Dooley v. (183 U. S. 151).. 62 Texas & P. R. Co., Marande v. (184 U. S. United States, Felsenheld v..

740 173)

340 United States, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Thompson, Chase V.. 933 Maryland v.

940 Thompson, McDonald v. (184 U. S. 71).. 297 United States, Fok Young Yo V. (185 U. Tierney, Town of Weston V. (184 U.S. S. 296)

686 695)

938 United States, Francis v. (181 U. S. 619).. 915 Titusville, Clark v. (184 U. S. 329).

382 United States, Gray v. (184 U. S. 700).. 939 Tootle v. Coleman (183 U. S. 695)

932 United States, Gwin v. (184 U. S. 669). . 526 Town of Oxford, Union Bank of Richmond United States, Hardy v..

889 V. (184 U. S. 701). 940 United States, Hoffeld v..

927 Town of Weston V. Tierney (184 U. S. United States, Hotema v..

895 695)

938 United States, Howard v. (184 U. S. 676) 543 Tracy v. Eggleston (183 U. & 699). 935 United States, Ju Fook Puon v....... 915 Train v. United States.

942 | United States, Lee Gon Yung v. (185 U. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. State of Connecticut

S. 306).

690 (185 U. S. 364)..

673 United States, Lee Lui Sing V...... 945 Truskett, Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v... 943 United States, Ling Ming v...

945 Tucker V. Alexandroff (183 U. S. 424). 195 United States, Ling Quong V...... Tucker v. United States (181 U. S. 619). . 945 United States, Lui Tsy Tsin v..

915 Tulare Irr. Dist. v. Shepard (185 U, S. 1) 531 United States, Miller 7., two cases. 914 Tullock v. Mulvane (18À U. Š. 497)...... 372 United States, Monroe v. (184 U. S. 524). . 444

United States, Moses y..

942 Union Bank of Richmond V. Board of United States, Nesbitt v..

805 Com'rs of Town of Oxford (184 U. S. United States, Pang Lung v..

945 701)

940 | United States, Pepke v. (In re Diamond Union Cent Life Ins. Co., Burt v. (i8i Rings, 183 U. S. 176)....

59 U. S. 617).. 945 United States, Perrin V...

941 Union Sewer Pipe Co., Connolly v. (184 U. United States, Pine River Logging & Imp. S. 540).

431
Co. v.

920 Union Steamboat Co. v. Erie & W. Transp. United States, Reloj Cattle Co. v. (18i U. Co. (181 U. S. 621).. 946 S. 624)

499 United States v. A. Klipstein & Co...... 941 United States, Rodgers v. (185 U. S. 83). . 582 United States v. Baca (184 U. S. 653).... 541 United States, Sandoval v.....

944 United States v. Barlow (184 U. S. 123).. 468 United States, Train V....

942 United States v. Borcherling (185 U. s. United States, Tucker v. (181 U. S. 619).. 915 223) 607 United States, Vetter V..

945 United States v. Camou (184 U. S. 572). 605 United States, Wing Long V..

915 United States v. Copper Queen Consol. United States, Wong Ah Sin V......

915 Min. Co. 761 | United States, Wong Chow v..

915 United States v. Ewing (184 U. 8. 140).. 480 United States, Wong Fat v....

915 United States v. Finnell (185 U. S. 236).. 633 United States, Wong Hong Yip v.. 945 United States v. Freel. 875 United States, Wong King V..

945 United States v. Green (185 U. S. 256). 640 United States, Wong Sic Chung v

915 United States v. Guggenheim Smelting Co. 942 United States, Wong Sic Loon v.... 945 United States v. The Laurada (183 V. S United States, Wong Soo Bow v.....

945 694) 936 United States, Wong Sow Sin v.

945 United States v. Lee Yen Tai (185 U. S. United States, Young Shang Lee v..... 945 213)

629 United States Mortgage & Trust Co., City United States v. Martinez (184 U. S. 441).. 422 of Galveston v. (183 U. S. 695)..

932 United States v. Morgan.

931 United States Repair & Guaranty Co. v. United States v. Nicholls.

918 Assyrian Asphalt Co. (183 U. S. 591).. 87 United States v. Pendell (185 U. S. 189). 624 | United States Trust Co. of New York v. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irri- Territory of New Mexico (183 U. S. 535) 172 gation Co. (184 U. S. 416). 428 Utter, Murphy V....

776 United States v. St. Louis & M. V. Transp. Co. (184 U. S. 247)...

350 Van Duzee, United States v. (185 U. 8. United States v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (183 278)

648 U. S. 519)..

154 Van Dyke v. Commonwealth of PennsylUnited States v. Southern Pac. R. Co. (184 vania

931 U. S. 49). 285 Vetter v. United States.

945 United States v. Van Duzee (185 U. S. Vicksburg, Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. 278) 648 (185 U. S. 65)...

585 United States, Ainsa v. (184 U. S. 639). . 507 Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. City of United States, American Aristotype Co. v. Vicksburg (185 U. S. 65).

585 (184 V. S. 697).

941 Village of Ashtabula, Stewart v. (183 U. United States, Arivaca Land & Cattle Co.

S. 696).

932 v. (184 U. 8. 649).

525 Village of Skaneateles, Skaneateles WaterUnited States, Baldwin v. (184 0. 8. 700) 939 works Co. v. (184 U. S. 354).

400 United States, Bowker V...

802 Villeneuve, Northwestern Life Assur, Co. United States, Chin Bak Kan V. (United

V.

933 States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. 8. 213). . 629 Voigt v. City of Detroit (184 U. S. 115). 337 United States, Chin Bak Kan V......... 891 Vulcan, The, Hingston V. (183 U. 8. 700) 836 United States, Chio Leong Goon V.. ..... 945

74

Pago

Pago Waite v. Oity of Santa Cruz (184 0. S. Wilson, Hartford Fire Ing. Co. v. (181 U. 302) 327 S. 617).....

945 Walker, Daggs v.

930 Wilson Bros. v. Nelson (183 U. 8. 191). Walters v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co... 941 | Wineland, Texas & P. R. Co. y..

932 Ward v. Joslin.. 807 Wing Long v. United States.

945 Warner v. Godfrey.

852 | Wisconsin v. Commissioners of Public Washington v. Northern Securities Co. (185 Lands (183 U. S. 693). .

934 U. S. 254)..

623 Wong Ah Sin v. United States....... 945 Watt, First Nat. Bank v. (184 U. S. 151) 457 Wong Chow v. United States.

945 Watt, Lake Benton First Nat. Bank v. Wong Fat v. United States.

945 (184 U. S. 151).. 457 | Wong King v. United States.

945 Watts, Whitman v. (183 U. S. 695). 932 Wong Hong Yip v. United States.

945 Weber v. Dillon.. 931 Wong Sic Chung v. United States.

945 Weston v. Tierney (184 U. S. 695). 938 Wong Sic Loon v. United States...... 945 Wheeler v. Githens... 930 Wong Soo Bow v. United States.

945 Wheelock, O'Brien v. (184 U. S. 450). 354 Wong Sow Sin v. United States.

945 White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Delaware Ins. Woodworth v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. (183 U. S. 700). 937 Co. (185 U. S. 354).

676 Whitman v. Citizens' Bank of Reading Wright, Bragg v....

944 (183 U. S. 695)..

932 Whitman v. Morton (183 U. S. 695). 932 Yeargin, Southern Pac. Oo. V. (183 U. S. Whitman v. Norton (183 U. S. 695). 932 695)

932 Whitman v. Watts (183 U. S. 695). 932 Yellow Poplar Lamber Co. v. Daniel (183 Wilcox & Gibbs Sewing Mach. Co. v. U. S. 696).

933 Sherborne (183 U. S. 696).

933 Young Shang Lee v. United States....... 945 Wilder, Texas & P. R. Co. v

936 Wilder's S, S. Co., In re (183 U. 8. 645). . 225 Zachritz, State of Missouri v. (184 U. 8. Williams v. Gaylord.. 798 697)

940 Wilson v. Iseminger (185 U. S. 55). 573 Zane v. County of Hamilton (183 U. S. Wilson v. Merchants' Loan & Trust ca 698)

946 (183 U. S. 121)...

55 Zernecke, Chicago, R. L & P. R. Co. v. Wiloon v Standeter (184 U. 8. 399). 384 (183 U. S. 682)

.. 229

[ocr errors]

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

OCTOBER TERM, 1901.

v.

(183 U. S. 13) KNOXVILLE IRON COMPANY, Piff. in he was the bona fide holder by purchase in Ert.,

due course of trade of certain specified ac

cepted orders for coal that had been issued SAMUEL HARBISON.

by the defendant company in payment of

wages due to its employees; that he had Constitutionality of statute-redemption of made due demand for their redemption in

store orders in money-interference with cash according to law, which demand had right of contract.

been refused; and that he was entitled to

a decree for the amount of said orders, with The provision for the redemption of store or interest. The company filed an answer de

ders, scrip, etc., in money, which is made by nying that the complainant was a bona fide Tenn. act March 17, 1899, requiring all per holder of the orders in question, and alleg. sons who issue such orders to employees lo ing an agreement between the company and payment of wages to redeem them in money its employees that the latter would accept thirty days after they are issued, if presented coal in payment of said orders, etc. and payment in money demanded by such em.

Proof was taken and the case heard by ployees or by bona Ade holders, is not un. the chancellor, who rendered a decree in fa. constitutional as an arbitrary Interference vor of the complainant for $1,702.06 as with the right of contract, but is a legitimate principal and interest of said orders, with exercise of the general legislative power as costs. An appeal was taken by the defend. well as of the police power.

ant company to the court of chancery ap[No. 22.]

peals of Tennessee, an intermediate court of

reference in equity causes, where the decree Argued and Submitted March 7, 1901. De- of the chancery court of Knox county was

affirmed. cided October 21, 1901.

The facts as found by the court of chan. N ERROR_to the Supreme Court of the cery appeals are as follows:

"The defendant is a corporation char. afirming a decree of the Chancery Court of tered under chapter 57, Acts of 1867-68. Appeals which affirmed a decree of the The following powers are given by $ 4: 'To Chancery Court of Knox County in favor of purchase, hold, and dispose of such real escomplainant in a bill to enforce the redemptate, not to exceed 70,000 acres, leases, min. tion in money of certain orders for coal is- erals, iron, coal, oil, salt, and personal propsued to employees in payment of wages. erty as they may desire, or as they may Affirmed.

deem necessary for the legitimate transacSee same case below, 103 Tenn. 421, 53 tion of their business; to mine, bore, forge, 8. W. 955.

smelt, work, and manufacture, transport, re

fine, and vend the same. The company to Statenient by Mr. Justice Shiras: have and enjoy and exercise all the rights,

In the chancery court of Knox county, privileges, and powers belonging to or inci. Tonnessee, Samuel Harbison, a citizen of dental to corporations, which may be con. nid state, on June 2, 1899, filed a bill of venient to carry out any business they are complaint against the Knoxville Iron Com. in this act authorized to engage in.' pany, a corporation organized under the “The defendant has its principal office at Laws of the state of Tennessee, alleging that I Knoxville, where it is engaged in the manu.

22 S. 0.-1

[ocr errors]

facture of iron. As an incident to this busi- ; 12 cents per bushel for the amount of coal ness it also mines and sells coal. Its mines called for by said orders. There is no proof are located in Anderson county. It works of an express agreement between the defendabout 200 employees. It has now and has ant and its employees that the orders had for many years a regular pay day, be should be paid only in coal, unless the face ing that Saturday in every month which is of the order shall be construed as setting nearest the 20th day of the month. Upon forth such an agreement. The only proof this pay day each employee is paid in cash of any implied agreement to that effect is the amount then due him, excepting what to be found in such inferences as may be may be due him from the first of the month, drawn from the face of the orders and from up to said pay day; that is, the company the custom of the company to issue them and keeps in arrears with its employees all the the employees to receive them on other than time to the extent of their wages for about the regular cash pay days and the fact that twenty days' time, so far as concerns the no employee has ever presented one of such matter of cash payments, but they may col. orders for redemption in anything else than lect this sum and all sums that may be coal. There is no proof of any compulsion due them in coal orders, as stated below. on the part of the defendant upon its operaIt does not and will not pay cash to its tives, except in so far as compulsion may employees for wages at any other time than be implied from the fact that unless defendupon said regular pay days. Defendant, ant's operatives take their wages in coal however, nearly always has on hand in its orders they must always on each monthly Knoxville yard a large amount of coal which pay day suffer the defendant to be in arrears it sells to all persons who are willing to about twenty days; that is, that on the reg. purchase, whether such persons are its la- ular pay day on that Saturday which is borers or the public generally. For some the nearest the 20th of the month, the detime prior to the filing of the bill and at fendant will not pay wages except up to the the time the bill was filed the defendant last day of the preceding month, but will was and had been accustomed to accept from pay in coal orders the whole wages due at its laborers, after work had been performed, the end of each week, and that such is the orders for coal in the following form: course of business between the defendant

'Let bearer have bushels of coal and its employees. The complainant pur. and charge to my account.

chased 614 of said accepted orders from de

fendant's employees, and within thirty days “The defendant's employees are accus. from the issuance of each of said orders torned to sign orders, and in this form they he presented each of them to the Knoxville are accepted by a stamp in these words: Iron Company, defendant hereto, and de“ 'Accepted 1899.

manded that it redeem them in cash, which “ 'Knoxville Iron Company.' was refused by defendant. Complainant is “Many of the defendant's employees have a licensed dealer in securities, and sent his never drawn an order on the defendant, and agents among the employees of the defendmany others have used them only in the ant to buy these coal orders. They had prepurchase of coal for themselves; but the de- viously been selling at 75 cents on the dol. fendant in this way pays off about 75 per lar,--that is, before the passage of chapter cent of the wages earned by its employees. 11, act of 1899—but he instructed his Many of the employees who draw these or agents to give 85 cents on the dollar, and ders get small wages, 90 cents to $1.20 per the orders now in suit were purchased at day, and sell these orders to get money to that price. They amount in dollars and live on, but those who get the largest wages, cents to $1,678. There is no evidence of bad $65 to $175 per month, draw more of such faith on the part of the complainant in tho coal orders in proportion than do those who purchase of said orders.” get small wages. Defendant has never in- The orders sued on in this case were is. sisted upon any of its laborers giving any sued after the passage of the act of March such orders, but has been willing to accept 17, 1899. such orders when any employee would draw From the decree of the chancery court of them and ask their acceptance. Defendant, appeals an appeal was taken by the comhowever, sets apart every Saturday after- pany to the supreme court of Tennessee, by noon, from 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock, for the which court the decrees of the courts be acceptance of such orders. It makes some

low were affirmed. The

then profit in accepting said orders in that, in- brought to this court by a writ of error alstead of paying the wages of its employees lowed by the chief justice of the supreme in cash, it* pays them in coal at 12 cents

court of Tennessee. per bushel, and also, to some extent, its coal business is increased thereby. On the other Lucky, and James A. Fowler for plaintiff

Messrs. E. T. Sanford, Cornelius E. hand, such orders are a convenience to the in error. defendant's employees in the way of enabling

Mr. John W. Green submitted the case them to realize on their wages before the reg. for defendant in error, and Mr. Samuel G. ular monthly pay day and up to that pay day. Shields was with him on the brief. When these orders are drawn by defendant's employees and accepted, defendant credits Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opinion itself with said orders on its accounts with of the court: the persons so drawing them at the rate of This is a suit in equity brought to this

case

was

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »