Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State ex rel. Davis v. Woolley

Supreme Court of Delaware

May 29, 1953

STATE ex rel. DAVIS
v.
WOOLLEY et al.

The State on the relation of a guard at New Castle County Workhouse brought mandamus proceedings or, in the alternative, suit for declaratory judgment, contending that he came under act making Saturday a holiday for certain officials and employees in New Castle County, and was therefore entitled to extra compensation for work performed on Saturday. The Superior Court, Carey, J., 92 A.2d 600, entered judgment adverse to guard and he appealed. The Supreme Court, Tunnell, J., held that guard did not come within statute.

Judgment affirmed.

Action by a former guard at the New Castle County Workhouse who seeks to recover arrearages of " extra" pay by reason of his having continued, after passage of the so-called " Saturday holiday" law, to work six days a week under the same wages he had been receiving prior to adoption of the Act.

Appeal from a judgment below in favor of respondents. Affirmed.

[48 Del. 35] Stewart Lynch, Robert B. Walls, Jr., Florence E. Freeman and Alfred R. Freczkowski, of Wilmington, for appellant.

Clyde M. England, Jr., and William S. Satterthwaite, of Wilmington, for appelees

Page 240

Herbert Barnes et al., constituting the New Castle County Levy Court.

Robert P. Barnett, of Wilmington, for appellees John A. Woolley et al., constituting the Board of Trustees of New Castle County Workhouse.

SOUTHERLAND, Chief Justice, and WOLCOTT and TUNNELL, Justices, sitting.

[48 Del. 36] TUNNELL, Justice.

For some time prior to May 23, 1949, and thereafter until May 15, 1951, the relator, Joseph W. Davis, was employed as a guard at the New Castle County Workhouse. His contract of employment with the Trustees of the Workhouse was oral, but it was stipulated to have been in substance as follows:

" (a) that the workweek would be six days in each week; and that he would work eight hours in each of such workdays, or a total of forty-eight hours per week;
" (b) that he would have one day off each week;
" (c) that all guards would work on so-called shift work, so that there would be guards on duty continuously in each twenty-four hours of a day;
" (d) that he would be paid a monthly salary of $214. per month, and that he would be paid semi-monthly;
" (e) that he would have a ten-day vacation, with full pay, after he had completed one year of service, and in each year thereafter;
" (f) that he would be paid in full for any time lost due to illness, with a limitation of fifteen days during the first year of his employment, and after such first year thirty days in any one year and less that five years of employment' and
" (g) that he would be compensated, on an hourly basis, for each hour or portion thereof that he worked in any week in [48 Del. 37] excess of the forty-eight hour workweek; and that the hourly compensation would be computed by dividing the total annual hours of 2,496 hours into his regular total annual or yearly salary."

For the duration of his employment the relator worked, and the Trustees paid him, according ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.