Barbe v. Cummins Const. Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Barbe v. Cummins Const. Corp.

138 F.2d 667, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1943

DocketNo. 5138

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 138 F.2d 667 (Barbe v. Cummins Const. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbe v. Cummins Const. Corp., 138 F.2d 667, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626 (4th Cir. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a case instituted under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The plaintiff was a cement finisher, working on the construction of buildings. His work consisted principally in leveling or pointing up concrete construction after the wooden frames had been removed therefrom. In some instances he assisted in pouring the concrete into wooden frames. It is contended that his work was “in commerce” within the meaning of. the act because the cement was brought from without the state and because he was sent into another state, in one instance, to work on the construction of a building. There-is nothing in either of these contentions. Plaintiff’s employment was in local construction work and he had no connection with the materials used by him until they had ceased to move in interstate commerce. For reasons adequately stated in the opinion below, he was not within the coverage of the act; and the judgment for the defendant must he affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a case instituted under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The plaintiff was a cement finisher, working on the construction of buildings. His work consisted principally in leveling or pointing up concrete construction after the wooden frames had been removed therefrom. In some instances he assisted in pouring the concrete into wooden frames. It is contended that his work was “in commerce” within the meaning of. the act because the cement was brought from without the state and because he was sent into another state, in one instance, to work on the construction of a building. There-is nothing in either of these contentions. Plaintiff’s employment was in local construction work and he had no connection with the materials used by him until they had ceased to move in interstate commerce. For reasons adequately stated in the opinion below, he was not within the coverage of the act; and the judgment for the defendant must he affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 F.2d 667, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbe-v-cummins-const-corp-ca4-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack