Southern Railway Co. v. Everett

66 S.E. 398, 7 Ga. App. 185, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 579
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 10, 1909
Docket2118
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 398 (Southern Railway Co. v. Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Railway Co. v. Everett, 66 S.E. 398, 7 Ga. App. 185, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Powell, J.

We omit from the discussion of the case the small item of back wages as to which there is no controversy. The case actually before us presents this state of facts. Everett sued the ■Southern Eailway Company for his wages, at the rate of $2.60 per day for the days intervening between March 22, 1908, and April 22, 1908. He recovered a verdict and judgment for $80.60— thirty-one days wages, at $2.60. He testified that he was em-plead by the month and paid by the month for the days he actually worked. He further testified that on March 28, 1908, he was “let out of the service” of the Southern Eailway Company, on account of a claim on the part of certain officers of the company that he was responsible for certain injuries to an engine which had been entrusted to his care. He was told that an investigation would be made and that they would let him know later what the result of the investigation was; and in the meantime, as he states it, he was “let out of the service.” On April 22 he was told that he was finally discharged.

The gravamen of the plaintiffs suit is not that he was unlawfully discharged on March 22, but that he ought to have been paid his wages during his suspension, pending the investigation; that if he had been discharged he could have gone on and gotten another job, but that during the period in question he was held out of other employment. The contract proved by the plaintiff was not such as to authorize a recovery under these circumstances. While he was employed by the month, yet he was to be paid only for the days he actually worked; and he did not work during this period.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Watts v. Hermitage Cotton Mills
78 S.E. 798 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 S.E. 398, 7 Ga. App. 185, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-everett-gactapp-1909.