TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

A. W. Kutsche & Co. v. Anderson

A. W. Kutsche & Co. v. Anderson, 83 S.W.2d 243 (Tenn. 1935)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Tennessee Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 11, 1935
Judges
DeHaven
Citations
83 S.W.2d 243169 Tenn. 985 Beeler 981935 Tenn. LEXIS 20

Opinion of the Court — DeHaven

Mb. Justice DeHaven delivered the opinion of the Court.

*99 Defendant in error was employed by plaintiff in error as a common laborer in tbe construction of tbe United States post office in Knoxville, and was paid twenty-two and a balf cents per bonr for bis work. After receiving this stipulated wage, he brought this suit before a justice of tbe peace to recover additional compensation; his claim being that the work to which he was assigned carried a wage scale of forty cents per hour. Plaintiff in error filed its plea in abatement, based upon the fact that defendant in error had not referred the claim to the Secretary of Labor, as required by Act of Congress passed March 3, 1931 (40 U. S. C. A., section 276a). The circuit judge overruled the plea in abatement, and on the trial of the case entered judgment in favor of defendant in error in the sum of $94.73. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this judgment and dismissed the case.

The case is now before this court on petition for cer-tiorari filed by William L. Anderson, defendant in error.

The assignments of error are to the effect that the act of Congress above mentioned has no application because of the circumstance that no controversy over wage scale is presented; the assertion being that the work to which petitioner was assigned fell under the classification of steel worker, carrying compensation at the rate of forty cents per hour.

It appears that A. W. Kutsche & Co., plaintiff in error, paid petitioner all that it agreed to pay him. If he is entitled to additional compensation, it must be by virtue of said act of Congress. Hence it necessarily follows that the controversy is one that must be submitted to the Secretary of Labor for decision.

Certiorari denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1935: 11937: 11944: 11946: 11972: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harris v. Owen176 S.W.2d 812 (Tenn. 1944)
  2. Northern States Contracting Co. v. Swope, Judge111 S.W.2d 610 (Ky. Ct. App. 1937)
  3. Ybanez v. Anchor Constructors, Inc.489 S.W.2d 730 (Tex. App. 1972)
  4. Kelly v. Grimshaw167 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1946)
  5. A. W. Kutsche & Co. v. Keith88 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn. 1935)

Most recent

  1. Ybanez v. Anchor Constructors, Inc.489 S.W.2d 730 (Tex. App. 1972)
  2. Kelly v. Grimshaw167 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1946)
  3. Harris v. Owen176 S.W.2d 812 (Tenn. 1944)
  4. Northern States Contracting Co. v. Swope, Judge111 S.W.2d 610 (Ky. Ct. App. 1937)
  5. A. W. Kutsche & Co. v. Keith88 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list