*2
HUTCHESON, and
SIBLEY,
Before
HOLMES,
Judges.
Circuit
HUTCHESON,
Judge.
Circuit
16(b)
Act, 29 U.S.C.A.
Fair Labor Standards
com
216(b),1
overtime
pensation
from October
equal
an
July
and
January
Brought
damages.
as
23,
and
to dismiss
1941,there
awas motion
on the
dismissing
an
action
ground that
action
by
Article
brought within the
for suits for
Louisiana Civil
tests
This
wages,2
prescribed.
Urging
that order.
correctness of
us that the
was not
action
one
within the
in
Article
but was
of 10
and within the
3544, appellants
insist that
order must be reversed.
that the district
Appellee, insisting
pre-
dismissing
the suit
year, cites decisions of
scribed
one
Texas, holding
district
courts3
such
suit was
prescriptive period
barred within
suits,
feder-
decisions of
vided
such
La.,
court
courts and of a
Benton,
Rouge,
al and state
Baton
Fred G.
Louisiana,4 holding
that such
appellants.
That
Any
scribed
“(b)
violates
who
servants,
laborers
6 or Section
wages.
payment of their
207 of
section
[section
this
D.C.S.D.Tex.,
employee
Ippolito,
Klotz v.
be liable
title]
Co.,
Supp.
Swift &
employees
F.
Wilkerson
amount of
affected
D.C.N.D.Tex.,
No.
60518 Commerce
un-
or their
House,
Clearing
(oral)
Cases
compensation,
Vol.
paid
Jax
Redfern v.
may bo,
reversed
an additional
Clearing
Beer,
damages.
No.
Commerce
Action to
amount as
Cases, N.D.,
liability may
House,
Tex
4. Labor
maintained
Vol.
recover such
by
jurisdiction
as,
reversed,
grounds
any
on other
both
court
Montgomery,
employees
and in
Duncan
or more
Company,
D.C.S.D.Tex.,
and oth-
themselves
himself or
Ward
behalf of
similarly situated,
Liquid
Supp. 879;
employees
or such
F.
Owin v.
Carbonic
er
may designate
F.Supp.
D.C.S.D.Tex.,
representative
agent
maintain such
Levy, D.C.W.D.La.,
of all
behalf
Divine v.
F.
action for
Supp. 49;
similarly
Greig
in such
situated.
v. Tide Water Associa
any judgment
shall,
in addition to
tion Oil
Civil Action No.
plaintiff
plaintiffs,
Mills,
al-
Chiarello
v. Rickert Rice
awarded
attorney’s
508; Davis,
Mengel
fee to be
reasonable
low a
Action
Company,
al. v.
No.
defendant,
126, E.D.,
of the ac-
costs
Civil Action No.
Louisiana;
Hancock,
60,
tion.”
Collins
No.
Prescription
Clearing House,
“Of the
of One Year.
Caddo
pre-
Parish,
Court, Louisiana;
actions
“3534. The
First District
was for
and- Article
addition, 1223,
year.
-(cid:127),
decided
contends,
if,
appellant
the court
said:
“The wages were
was not
breach for
statute,
for
a
him the
*3
and he was no more
statutory
duty, it
on a at
not
suit
fault than
employer.
the
quasi
of damages
within
the
pay
to
3544,
10
provided in
was wages
under
6(a)
7(a)
sections
are
*
damages
resulting compensation,
a suit “for
penalty
not a
quasi
from offenses
offenses” and was
the
Huntington
Government.5 Cf.
v.
prescribed
Attrill,
under Article 3536.
146
657, 667, 668, 674, 681,
U.S.
224, 227,
13
230,
228,
233,
S.Ct.
36 L.Ed.
agree
appellee
with
the
1123;
Bros.,
Lykes
376,
Cox v.
237 N.Y.
the
that the
is not one
ployee recovery make. The fact that the Corp., Cir., 48, 50, ap 5 299 F. this court includes double the amount for plied copy Article 3536 to a claim for change damages does not all the charac infringement saying: “Under recovery wages, merely ter as ‘quasi-offenses’" Louisiana law the word increases the amount. Motor has the same ‘torts’" meaning word Boh Bros. Const. Shannon v. in McCrea is true that it was held La.App. Orleans, States, 632, 8 Cir., Parish of So.2d 2 v. United 70 F.2d 5 page 634, Government collected the citing “The has Missouri Pacific R. Co. point: Ault, 593, cases under 65 41 S.Ct. ‘One holds that the “double line cases Revised Stat Art. damages” penalty compensa in- utes, do not constitute has the dual punishment, curred under the United the laws of tion and and that because it meaning penal co-notation, States Sections within has a the United States ** * (9) having agreed and 256 of Judicial Code could not be held * * * 41(9), against holding, §§ it. But holding (b) holdings holding other line of cases Section 16 penal cited in Note Appeals to be remedial rather involves the New York in Cox Court N.E., Lykes Bros., determination N.Y. ” penalty, of limitations.’ for a affirming Revised Statute Sec. Title the fact that on. U.S.C.A., Spencer, ground, Supreme Gerber another Court in. D.C., Trader, States, 278 F. McCrea v. United 294 U.S. Buckley Steamship Co., 735, expressly v. Oceanic point, finally Feldman Ameri declined decide this Line, D.C., point can Palestine the fiat decision Over Fergusson, 52, 54, night Collie v. 281 U.S. Motor Note 5, supra. L.Ed. 696. 'alone is cution involved. excess n tinction employer affirmative tion of Section plete,. apparently n n thought The Fair ville hibitory in “minimum longer Standards wages. Section 7 is so that vide for those and hour v. North Shore compensation sections are wages, but 3536].” Eighteen months after regular rate. for labor which falls state commerce so fense or fringement of a It It is doubtful whether high rate. SIBLEY, Circuit * * ground under Section a new made, dismissal, is Paper unless common-law time hours contrary by forbidding their exe- the statute amends important properly before us. appears in Section tort, shall employ receives Act. wages” and what bridge followed rights compensation. The same dis- Standards Co., 5 form, employment [and Fleming, under Section 7. form, requiring limitation, rates; “compensation” is made at 6 as to plaintiffs Compare annuls as copyright as to be under to each of his to note that no high different. Section is barred compensation” for the jurisdictions. and a half times the “No action, under it so as to Judge, right. the first time it was negative Adm’r, Act, rate plaintiffs in build- engaged Overstreet illegal was under for their work. what employees” for job is a where referred ought to have’ that statute. It is 16(b), under Article on put solely (concurring). “unless such is not called We for overtime and demand Fair Labor was com- is due is contracts The two quasi-of- in inter- Jackson- affirmed. what is ground “every rates”, giving ing viola- about to as but think et pro- 6 is 395. in- been al. tween penalties, 28 U.S.C.A. § artificially questions of laborer’s short. Foundry Meeker v. 328, U.S.C.A. § gress arise. Art. lated, by doubling them are 15 U.S.C.A. §§ distinction pen but it for private tion 7 time cause tion”. The that an action for is one ** “liquidated damages”. S. est would A Daly, 175 U.S. triple is further being *4 where, limitation of compensation” of their Act, offense, offenses. what must may be otherwise federal statute name of workmen prohibitory is reparation under the railroad be; which deals alone Lehigh, 17 U.S.C.A. § the federal statute Act, 49 not one Pipe ought Art. 3536. look to escape penalization 644, Ann.Cas.1916B, doubling wages”, would be the aim so the limitation, called “overtime important very I concur in the 1-7, 15 damages under tort,1 Works v. garnishment unpaid minimum year is not and what liens, and * under the incidental, placed squarely limiting suits Both articles note, Chattanooga the Antitrust L.Ed. State I am rather damages, that here to observe Atlanta, each is named of actions * does not the Interstate with is for “over- statutes for seq., in the case than affirmance, under Sec- statute, 45 applicable. compensa- limitation, exemption been vio- 1 et unusually by Con- “actions not, for due be- sure opinion or the Brady apply- states. public apply, Copy called L.Ed. inter- hap- pay- seq., Act, be- U. on Transportation Missell, prevention tor S. of overtime work is though important Ct. L.Ed. —. prohibited. positively Mo-