Matthews v. Industrial Lumber Co.

75 S.E. 170, 91 S.C. 568, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 271

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: July 9, 1912
• Docket: 8248
• Status: Published

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from judgment in a magistrate’s court in favor of plaintiff, affirmed' in the Circuit Court by the presiding Judge. There is no conflict' in the evidence, the facts 'being admitted, and it is so conceded by appellant’s and respondent’s attorneys. The appeal really presents a question of law.

The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant to recover the sum of $2.10 for one day’s- work at twenty cents an hour, earned by him- as a frame builder, for which payment was demanded and refused. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff worked on the day in question, December 20, 1910, the number of hours shown, by his shop time card, and the only ground ulpon which they refused to pay was that plaintiff had failed to punch on that day a mechanical time clock device installed by the defendant which all employees were -required to- punch when going* on and -off duty -by a rule posted -on said clock. -Tire rule read-: “All1 -employees must note that this time- -clock i-s for their individual protection, and should any -one be so careles-s as to neglect their -own interest, by failing to- register in and out, -there is no -one -connected with -this company that has- the authority to make corrections, and from this day on, a man’s time card -will be taken as -evidence of hi-s -time, uni-e-s© he is s-ent out by the superintendent of his department, who-, in that event, will record for his time. (Signed) T. G. Philpot, V. P.”

There wais another rule or regulation of the company posted at the drinking places which was: “Mr. Red-fern, Supt.-—-It seems impossible to- get your men to appreciate the importance of fuming in their time -cards. In future any one neglecting to turn in their time cards, will not consider the clock cards as sufficient evidence of hi-s time. (Signed) T. G. Philpot, V. P.”

There was no- written contract between the -parties. Upon verdict for the- plaintiff in -the magistrate’s court defendant appealed- -to. Circuit Court and alleged -error in not granting nonsuit, as moved fo-r by defendant, and alleged certain errors of la-w by the magistrate in his- -charge to the jury.

His Honor, Judge Prince, overruled the exceptions and dismissed the appeal, whereupon defendant appeals -and asks for a reversal on the grounds -that his Honor erred in- not sustaining defendant’s appeal- on each- and every ground; in not sustaining defendant’s motion for a nonsuit in- that the evidence showed that there- w-as a regulation of defendant, known to the plaintiff, requiring employees -to- punch the clock-to- indicate the time for which -they were to- receive pay and, showed, further, that on the day in' question, December SO, 1910, plaintiff failed to punch the clock at all and there was no clock record of any time put in by him that day and that there was no evidence to support the verdict. Here we have a finding of fact in the magistrate’s court, concurred in 'by the Circuit Judge on appeal.

1 2 We have held repeatedly that a judgment founded on facts in the magistrate’s court, affirmed by the Circuit Court, will not be disturbed by this Court if there is any testimony to support it. State v. Powell, ante 5, and cases therein cited. There is such testimony here, but the defendant seems to want this Court to indicate some rule by which such business can be governed. Any company can adopt such reasonable rules for the conduct of their business as they see fit and proper and as seems expedient to them, provided they are not in contravention of public policy or the law of the land. If the plaintiff violated the reasonable rules of ■defendant and defendant had not waived its rules' the plaintiff could have been discharged’ by the defendant. Parties can contract mutually with each other and be bound mutually by the terms of the contract. There is no testimony in this case that shows that there was ’any agreement between the plaintiff and- defendant that a sum should be forfeited by the plaintiff if he should violate any of defendant's rules even if those rules were- reasonable. “Acts of an employee sufficient to justify a dismissal will not justify a refusal to -pay less, than -the stipulated price for the work where such acts produce no pecuniary loss to the employer who did not -discharge the 'employee although aware thereof.” McCracken v. Hair, 2 Speers: Reports, 25.

In this oase there- is no- testimony that the plaintiff had assented to the rules- even though he knew of them or hi-s attention had been especially called to- them. He was- not bound by any rules- that he- had not contracted' to observe or was not incident 'to' or assumed by him ini the general scope of his employment. This Court held in Norman v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. C. 517, 44 S. E. 83, “that a passenger paying full fare for a general ticket is not bound by limita tions printed thereon unless his -attention) ha® been especially called to them and he has assented thereto.”

Here plaintiff performed work required and was entitled to be paid.

Appeal dismissed.