The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-02-14
THE EIGHT-HOUR LAW
Appellate Court Rules Against the
EmplOye in the Grissell Case.
Add itiOnal Compensation Cannot BE
Claimed in Absence of a Con-
tract for Eight Hours.

John GrisselPs suit against the Noel Bros.
Flour and Fed Company, of this city, was
yesterday decided by the Appellate Court in
favor of the company. Grissel drove a de-
livery wagon for Noel Bros. from May II,
$780, to March Il, 1891, receiving ST. a day
for his services After he left their en-
ploy he concluded to sue them under the
eight-hour law for overtime, claiming he
had worked almost every day until or
10 O'Clock at night. He brought suit in a
Justices court, and the case was taken to
special term of the Marion Superior Court,
where he secured judgment for Sl25. The
defendants appealed to the General Term
of the Superior Court, which reversed this
judgment. Grissell then carried the case to
the Supreme Court, which tribunal ordered
1t transferred to the Appellate Court, where
the decision of the lower court in General
Term was yesterday affirmed. The ground
of the appeal was simply that the court in
General Term erred in reversing the judS-
ment Of the court in special term. The
theory Of the appellant was that under
the eght-hour law he was entitled, without
special agreement, to receive extra pay for
all time he worked over eight hours day.
The General Term, in reversing the first
judgment, held that the evidence was not
any money from defendants on his claim.
In disposing of the case in favor of the
company yesterday the Appellate Courts
opinion, written by Judge Reinhard, says,
among other things:
at was not intended by the statute in
question to abridge the right of contracting
for a greater number Of hours than eight
in any calendar day, and any attempt TO
do so must inevitably fail of the result de-
sired for the abundant reason that the re-
duction of the hours of labor would in
evitabiy be followed by n corresponding
reduction in the rate of compensation, and
would in the end leave the parties in the
condition they were in before the law was
enacted.
The appellant must recover, if at all,
either upon an express contract or an inn
piled one. If one person employs another
to perform a single days labor for him at
e. pays the laborer $1.25 and the latter
ceptS it in payment of the days work he
cannot afterward recover an additional
sum, albeit he may have worked nine
ten or eleven hours instead of eight hours,
and notwithstanding the law under eXami
nation makes eight hours legal days
work is done by the week or month or year.
There can be no doubt but that in the pres
emit case the appellee paid and the appellant
accepted at the end OF each week the sum
of $3.50 in full paymnt of the work done by
him during the previous week.
"By continuing in his employers service
under the terms of the employment appel
liant waived any right to claim additional
been able TO find a single authority in sup
port of the contention that under such
statute the one relied upon a. laborer
who works more than eight hours in tWen-
ty-four may recover for extra services in
the absence of q special or implied contract
to that effect. The evidence, it thinks, did
returning a verdict for the appellant for
amount.