*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 143 N.E. 226.” The thing has same quasi of contract but a suit respect held in of liens and limitations as payment laborers and servants the of to provision the wages in an- wages their under Article and is purpose Federal statute6 3534. The liability statute which fixes the similar the to one under review in- to the sue for confers payment sure the wages of their full recovery quite the makes it delay. without undue clear, think, pro we that this so. any employer vides that who violates the agree appel if we could with provisions of 6 7 this Act of lant the suit is not we wages could provisions (the wages for minimum not agree quasi at all that it is a suit in pay) overtime ployee shall be liable to the em prescrip contract and within the 10 employees affected, in the tion Article of 3544. We would be bound amount their of to hold that if not a suit it was as the in tort damages crime aor be, crime, additional is, for the violation the liquidated damages. Nothing as positive provisions and there of Section 7 supports provision the view that fore within the liability out of a arises contract. Felix, Article 3536. U.S. O’Sullivan v. 233 In 318, clear On 596, 980, 34 58 L.Ed. liability Louisiana offense limitation was- agreements under the working which the applied damages require employer federal statutes and em Rights Civil Act. In Fox Film McCaleb v.

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-