Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1872

Bachelder v. Bickford

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · Decided July 1, 1872 · Appleton, Barroavs, Danforth, Dickerson, Walton, Yirgin

62 Me. 526

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Thibault v. National Tea Co. (Minn. 1936)
Schoonover v. City of Viroqua (Wis. 1944)
Tanner v. Imperial Recreation Parlors, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1943)
Hurt v. Edgell (Kan. 1938)
Robinette v. Hubbard Coal Mining Co. (W. Va. 1921)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Walton, J.

When a contract to work in a grist mill, at eight shillings per day, to be paid weekly, is silent as to the length of time that shall constitute a day’s work, the rule established by the statutes of this State that “in all contracts for labor, ten hours of actual labor shall be a legal day’s work, unless the contract stipulates for a longer time,” is applicable. R. S., c. 82, § 36. And if *528tlie laborer works nights, after his legal day’s work is done, at the request of his employer, and for his benefit, the law implies a promise on his part to pay for such labor. Acceptance of pay for the day labor will be no bar to a recovery for the night labor. It is true that the above rule is not applicable to “monthly labor,” nor to “agricultural employments.” But in our judgment, work in a grist mill, at eight shillings-per day, to be paid weekly, is not monthly labor, nor agricultural employment.

Such, in effect, was the ruling in this case. We think the ruling Avas correct. Exceptions overruled.

Appleton, C. J., Dickerson, Barroavs, Danforth and Yirgin, JJ., concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.