Bailey v. National Carloading Corp.

District of Columbia

Bailey v. National Carloading Corp.

139 F.2d 383, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 244, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2294

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 13, 1943

DocketNo. 8429

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 F.2d 383 (Bailey v. National Carloading Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. National Carloading Corp., 139 F.2d 383, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 244, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2294 (D.D.C. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, Associate Justice.

This is a proceeding under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938¹ to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. The Act provides in Sections 6 and 7, for minimum rates of wages, maximum hours of employment and overtime compensation in case of employment in excess of the maximum specified. The trial court made but a single finding of fact as follows : “The plaintiff failed to prove, by the preponderance of the' evidence, that he worked the overtime claimed in his complaint.” It concluded as a matter of law that he was not entitled to recover the amount claimed or any other sum. The evidence upon this question is in serious conflict, but it is clearly susceptible of the interpretation placed upon it by the court in its finding of fact. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment.²

In view of our decision upon the foregoing question it is unnecessary to consider the other questions presented in the briefs.

Affirmed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MILLER, Associate Justice.

This is a proceeding under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938¹ to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. The Act provides in Sections 6 and 7, for minimum rates of wages, maximum hours of employment and overtime compensation in case of employment in excess of the maximum specified. The trial court made but a single finding of fact as follows : “The plaintiff failed to prove, by the preponderance of the' evidence, that he worked the overtime claimed in his complaint.” It concluded as a matter of law that he was not entitled to recover the amount claimed or any other sum. The evidence upon this question is in serious conflict, but it is clearly susceptible of the interpretation placed upon it by the court in its finding of fact. Consequently, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment.²

In view of our decision upon the foregoing question it is unnecessary to consider the other questions presented in the briefs.

Affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F.2d 383, 78 U.S. App. D.C. 244, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-national-carloading-corp-dcd-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack