People v. Phyfe — 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 350

Majority

p. 350

The People, Resp’ts, v. James H. Phyfe, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed September, 1892.)

Headnote

Constitutional law—Laws 1892, chap. 711.

Chap. 711, Laws 1892, providing that ten hours work in twelve hours-shall he considered a day’s work, and if employed longer the employee shall receive proportionate extra compensation, is not unconstitutional.

Appeal from judgment rendered on conviction of a misdemeanor in violating the provisions of chap. 711, Laws 1892.

Frank Loomis, for app’lt; W. Popham Platt, dist. att’y, for resp’ts.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Westchester oyer and terminer rendered on a conviction of a misdemeanor in violating the provisions of chap. 711, Laws of 1892. The defendant admitted the commission of the act charged in the indictment and offered no evidence in justification, resting his defense on the claim that the statute is unconstitutional and void. The parties being anxious to obtain the judgment of the highest court on the question have favored us with neither arguments nor briefs.

We, therefore, do not feel called upon to more than state briefly the conclusion we have reached and the reasons therefor without elaboration.

The presumption is in favor of the validity of legislative enactments. We think that the statute in question can be construed so as to render it constitutional and, if so, that construction should be given to it. The statutory penalty seems by § 4 confined to violations by corporations or their agents. We do not admit that in the case of corporations the control of the legislature is absolute. The franchise granted a railroad company is irrepealable and vested property. People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y., 1 : 19 St. Rep., 173 .

At the same time, a railroad can be operated legally in this state only by a railroad corporation. 80 N. Y., 27 .

As to other corporations, it may be that they must comply with any regulations the legislature may see fit to prescribe, or give up their corporate franchises (if any) as individuals. Railroad companies, however, do not seem to have this option. But the statute does not necessarily interfere with the private property rights of the company. It provides that ten hours work in twelve hours shall be considered a day’s work, and that if employed longer the employee shall receive “ comparative ” (proportionate ?) compensation for the extra service. The act does not prescribe what rate of wages shall be paid. The company may make such compensation as it sees fit and at which it is able to obtain employees. Nor does the statute prohibit making contracts otherwise than by the day. The company may employ by the “ job ” or “ piece ” or “ hour.” In this respect the case at bar differs radically from that of People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y., 389 ; 16 St Rep., 185 . In fact it may be that the only effect of this statutory provision is to create a liability on a, contract which the law implies in the absence of an

p. 351

agreement between the parties to the contrary, and to punish a failure to discharge such liability. If this be the limit of legislative power, then such is the construction which should be placed upon the statute. This question could only be raised by evidence offered by the defendant to show that the employee'agreed to work the overtime without compensation or for a different rate of compensation than that prescribed by law. The question is not in the case now before us and we, therefore, decline to pass upon it

The conviction and .judgment thereon should be affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.