McGraw v. City of Gloversville

The plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, was employed by the defendant, a municipal.corporation, as janitor and care taker of its city building, and he rendered services as such in and about such building, pursuant to his employment, from May 10, 1894, to October 31, 1896, and was paid therefor every two weeks at the rate of $1.50 per day, which he received, without making claim for more until after his whole period of service had expired. The

Section 1: "On and after the passage of this act, eight hours shall constitute a legal day’s work for all classes of mechanics, workingmen and laborers, except those engaged in farm and domestic labor; but overwork for an extra compensation by agreement between employer and employe is hereby permitted.”

Section 2. “This act shall apply to all mechanics, workingmen and laborers now or hereafter employed by the state, or by municipal corporations therein, through its agents or officers, or in the employ of persons contracting with the state or such corporation for performance of public works.”

Sections 3 and 4 provide for the punishment of violations and evasions of the provisions of this act. In 1894 the legislature amended section 2 of the foregoing act by adding thereto the following provision: "And all such mechanics, workingmen and laborers so employed shall receive not less than the prevailing rate of wages in the respective trades or callings in which such mechanics, workingmen and laborers are employed in said locality;” and a provision requiring the employment of citizens of the United States.

The judgment should be affirmed upon the authority of McCarthy v. Mayor, etc., 96 N. Y. 1 , which holds that there is nothing in the act of 1870 "to interfere with the question of the rate of compensation to be paid for labor, but left it in terms to the agreement of the parties,” and that "neither extra labor can be required nor extra compensation demanded except in the case of an agreement therefor previously made by the parties,” unless the addition to section 2, made in 1894, and above quoted, changes the law. The plaintiff did not "receive less than the prevailing rate of wages” in said city, but he wrought more than eight hours per day. This he was willing to do. Ho constraint was placed upon him; indeed, the evidence justifies the inference that he was willing to continue his service at the same pay and hours of labor. Will the law interfere after a willing sendee has been rendered and paid for, pursuant to the understanding of both parties, and to their satisfaction, and compel further payment? We think not in case the laborer is of mature age, and not under the constraint of his employer. The statute may be construed as expressing the contract between the parties when it is not expressed by themselves or implied by their acts, but not as impairing the obligation of such lawful contracts as they are competent to make, and which they have fully executed and satisfied according to their mutual understanding. We have not overlooked McMahon v. City of New

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.