Case Name: John H. BARRY and W. T. Stalcup, for Themselves and for all Others Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. J. C. COMPTON, District Attorney of the Ninth Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, and E. B. Eastham, Sheriff of Curry County, New Mexico, Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jurisdiction: New Mexico
Decision Date: 1933-10-23
Citations: 37 N.M. 599
Docket Number: No. 3916
Parties: John H. BARRY and W. T. Stalcup, for Themselves and for all Others Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. J. C. COMPTON, District Attorney of the Ninth Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, and E. B. Eastham, Sheriff of Curry County, New Mexico, Appellants.
Judges: SADLER, HUDSPETH, BIOKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: New Mexico Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
26 P.(2d) 359
John H. BARRY and W. T. Stalcup, for Themselves and for all Others Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. J. C. COMPTON, District Attorney of the Ninth Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, and E. B. Eastham, Sheriff of Curry County, New Mexico, Appellants.
No. 3916.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Oct. 23, 1933.
J. C. Compton, Dist. Atty., of Portales, for appellants.
Perkins L. Patton, Richard E. Manson, and Carl A.' Hatch, all of Clovis, for appellees.

Opinion:
WATSON, Chief Justice.
John H. Barry, proprietor of a retail hardware establishment, and W. T. Stalcup, an employee thereof, for themselves and in behalf of others similarly situated, sued to enjoin J. C. Compton, district attorney, and E. B. Eastham, county sheriff, from enforcing Laws 1933, c. 149, limiting the hours of labor of male employees in mercantile establishments.
The defendants demurred to the complaint, and, their demurrer being overruled, refused to plead further, and have appealed from the final judgment awarding the relief prayed for.
There are no contentions of error here other than that the learned trial judge erred in holding the statute unconstitutional. State v. Henry, 37 N. M. 536, 25 P.(2d) 204, is therefore controlling of.this case.
The judgment will be affirmed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.
SADLER, HUDSPETH, BIOKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.