Schroeder v. Collins

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Schroeder v. Collins

37 So. 722, 113 La. 778, 1904 La. LEXIS 707

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 4, 1904

DocketNo. 15,493

StatusPublished

Cited by51 cases

This text of 37 So. 722 (Schroeder v. Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schroeder v. Collins, 37 So. 722, 113 La. 778, 1904 La. LEXIS 707 (La. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

LAND, J.

The Court of Appeal held that a railroad switchman is a “laborer” in the sense of article 644 of the Code of Practice, as amended by Act No. 79, p. 123, of 1876, exempting “laborer’s wages” from seizure under execution. We see no error in this ruling.

All manual employments require a certain degree of intelligence and skill. It is true that we have held that a locomotive engineer was not a “laborer” in the sense of the statute (State ex rel. Grocery Co. v. Judge, 108 La. 512, 32 South. 433, 58 L. R. A. 407, 92 Am. St. Rep. 392), but we did so because we considered him as a “mechanical engineer,” discharging highly important duties, requiring the exercise of skill, expertness, and judgment, and as occupying a posi[779]*779tion of authority in the management of the train.

To hold that a switchman was not a laborer would be tantamount to denying the benefit of the exemption to all railroad employes performing hard manual labor.

It is therefore ordered that this application be denied, applicant to pay all costs of same.

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

LAND, J.

The Court of Appeal held that a railroad switchman is a “laborer” in the sense of article 644 of the Code of Practice, as amended by Act No. 79, p. 123, of 1876, exempting “laborer’s wages” from seizure under execution. We see no error in this ruling.

All manual employments require a certain degree of intelligence and skill. It is true that we have held that a locomotive engineer was not a “laborer” in the sense of the statute (State ex rel. Grocery Co. v. Judge, 108 La. 512, 32 South. 433, 58 L. R. A. 407, 92 Am. St. Rep. 392), but we did so because we considered him as a “mechanical engineer,” discharging highly important duties, requiring the exercise of skill, expertness, and judgment, and as occupying a posi[779]*779tion of authority in the management of the train.

To hold that a switchman was not a laborer would be tantamount to denying the benefit of the exemption to all railroad employes performing hard manual labor.

It is therefore ordered that this application be denied, applicant to pay all costs of same.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 722, 113 La. 778, 1904 La. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schroeder-v-collins-la-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack