Wernhardt v. Koenig

60 F. Supp. 709, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2268
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 10, 1945
DocketCivil Action No. 4073
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 60 F. Supp. 709 (Wernhardt v. Koenig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wernhardt v. Koenig, 60 F. Supp. 709, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2268 (E.D. Pa. 1945).

Opinion

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

This action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., for overtime pay. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

It appears from the complaint that the plaintiffs are employees of the defendants and are engaged in interstate commerce. It further appears from a letter from the National War Labor Board, dated March 4, 1944, which by agreement of the parties was considered by the 'Court as though incorporated into the pleadings, that the hourly rates, upon the basis of which this claim for overtime is made, were the result of a wage adjustment made by the employers without securing the approval of the National War Labor Board, in violation of the Wage Stabilization Law and regulations promulgated thereunder. Therefore, this complaint shows on its face that the recovery sought is based on an illegal [710]*710contract. The Wage Stabilization Law provides in 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 965:

“No employer shall pay, and no employee shall receive, wages or salaries in contravention of the regulations promulgated by the President under this Act.” This section makes plain the intent of Congress that such contracts are illegal and the Court can not and will not lend itself to the enforcement of a contract made to perform an act which is expressly forbidden by a law of the United States and arises from an illegal contract. Such a contract is not only unenforcible but void. Fitzsimons v. Eagle Brewing Co., 3 Cir., 107 F.2d 712, 126 A.L.R. 681. The result is that these plaintiffs can not base any claims on such agreements.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

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

Related

Flight Equipment & Engineering Corp. v. Shelton
103 So. 2d 615 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1958)
Morford v. Bellanca Aircraft Corp.
67 A.2d 542 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1949)
Marvin v. Hodgson
202 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1949)
Guter v. Donaldson Iron Co.
69 Pa. D. & C. 150 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1948)
Thacker v. American Foundry
177 P.2d 322 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Roscoe v. Ross Service, Inc.
59 Pa. D. & C. 160 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F. Supp. 709, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wernhardt-v-koenig-paed-1945.