103 So. 414 | Fla. | 1925
Lead Opinion
This action is by the alleged owner and holder to recover from the defendant issuing company the face value of certain coupons issued by it in the conduct of its business in payment for labor and service rendered by its employees. It is alleged that the coupons stipulate that they are redeemable by the issuing company in merchandise only; that the nominal plaintiff, who was a merchant, had received them in payment for merchandise sold by him to the laborers and employees to whom issued, and that after the expiration of ninety days from the issuance of said coupons they were presented to the issuing company for payment, but payment in money at their face value was refused. Thereupon suit was brought for the face value of the coupons, with interest from the date of demand, and attorney fees. The issues having been made, the cause was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. The issuance of the coupons by defendant, delivery to its employees, and transfer to and ownership by plaintiff are not denied. There was a finding and judgment for plaintiff. Writ of error was taken from this court.
By statute persons or corporations issuing coupons or other similar devices in payment for labor are made liable, on demand of any legal holder thereof, "on or after the ninetieth day succeeding the day of issuance," for the full face value thereof in current money of the United States, *121 notwithstanding any contrary stipulation or provisions which may be therein contained, together with legal interest from demand and an attorney fee of ten per cent, where suit is required to enforce payment. Secs. 2522, 2523, 2524, Rev. Gen. Stats.
Discussion of the several questions presented in briefs and oral argument would amount to no more than a reiteration of principles settled in former cases in this and other jurisdictions, and no reason having been presented for a change of the views formerly entertained by this court holding this statute valid, it is not conceived that a journey over the same route would be profitable.
The judgment is therefore affirmed on authority of Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman,
Since the holding that the title of the act was insufficient to include the provision authorizing recovery of an attorney fee, the statute including this provision has been incorporated in the Revised General Statutes of Florida.
Affirmed.
WHITFIELD, P. J., AND TERRELL, J., concur.
TAYLOR, C. J., AND ELLIS AND BROWNE, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Concurrence Opinion
The statute appears to contemplate that the "checks, coupons, punch-outs, tickets, tokens, or other device in payment for labor," may be acquired in a continuous course of dealing by the laborers or by others who are given the *122
same rights of action upon failure of payment as stated in the Act, and such a continuous course of dealing is indicated by the declaration in this case, therefore a lack of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, which is a court of general jurisdiction, does not appear under the principles announced in Burkhart v. Gowin,
The liberty of contract secured by organic law is not absolute. It is subject to a great variety of restraints by governmental authority in the interest of the general welfare. "But freedom of contract is, nevertheless, the general rule and restraint the exception; and the exercise of legislative authority to abrogate it can be justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances." Adkins v. Children's Hospital of District of Columbia,
It is stipulated in this case that the laborers "were to receive an agreed amount per diem to be paid in cash on the second and fourth Saturdays in each month," and that the coupon books redeemable only in merchandise were issued as a convenience and an accommodation. Obviously the legislature deemed the laborer to be at some disadvantage under existing circumstances in taking the coupon books redeemable only in merchandise at the employer's store, the books to be used to conserve the laborer's current needs between pay days; and the legislation was designed to place the employer and the laborer on equal ground in paying and receiving wages. The statute gives to the coupon books a value they would not otherwise have. This is simple justice to the laborer, and is no injury to the employer who agreed to pay or is required to pay money for the labor. The enactment is a reasonable and not a mere arbitrary provision of law.
The language of the statute indicates the unequal ground upon which employer and laborer stood, and the provisions enacted under the police power relieving this disparity in the standing of the parties are amply justified by the exceptional conditions affected by the statute. See Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman,
The fact that the wages are payable every two weeks rather than once a month as in Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison,supra, does not destroy the efficacy of the facts to sustain the validity of the act. The laborer's necessities exist between semi-monthly pay days as well as between monthly pay days. Issuing the coupon booklets to laborers in advance of performance of the labor does not affect the validity or applicability of the statutory regulation.
The statute provides that coupons, c., issued for labor shall be treated as payable to bearer, and the parties cannot by making and accepting coupon books marked "not transferable" defeat the policy, terms and purpose of a statute enacted under the police power. See National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wanberg,
The operation of the mandatory terms of a valid statute cannot be hindered by contracts or mutual conduct contrary to the statute. The policy and purpose of the statute are to regulate payments for labor when under the circumstances covered by the statute the parties are not upon an equal footing; and employers and employees cannot by any course of conduct or by any form of agreement express or implied, interfere with the operation of the statute upon the subject covered and intended to be regulated by the enactment.
Since the decision in Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman, supra, the provision as to attorney fees has been re-enacted in the Revised General Statutes, 1920.
The question whether the title to an act when originally enacted was broad enough to cover some of its sections is *125
of no moment, when the sections of said act were subsequently embodied in the General Statutes. Carlton v. State,
As to the validity of the provision for attorney fees which is re-enacted in the Revised General Statutes, see Missouri, K. T. R. Co. of Texas v. Harris,
It does not clearly appear that the statutory allowance of attorney fees in ten per cent. of the amount recovered by suit in this class of cases, is so arbitrary and oppressive as to violate organic property rights under the rule stated in Chicago N.W. R. Co. v. Nye, Schneider Fowler Co.,supra.
TAYLOR, C. J., concurs. *126