WALLING
v.
CONNECTICUT CO.

2d Cir. | 1946-03-29
No. 221
154 F.2d 552 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1946) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.

FRANK, Circuit Judge. There is little to add to what was said in the opinion below. Aside from § 13(a) (9), the employees are obviously within the Act, without regard to the percentage of power sold for use in interstate commerce.1 Defendant’s contention comes to this: Since it is a “local trolley carrier,” none of its employees is covered by the Act because § 13(a) (9) expressly exempts “any employee” of such a carrier. Literally, that contention is correct. But it would mean that, no matter in what business, however extraneous to its functioning as a “local trolley carrier,” defendant engaged, those employed in that extraneous business would be exempt. The policy of the Act, disclosed in its history, precludes the acceptance of such a literal construction.2 Affirmed. Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co. Inc., 66 S.Ct. 511. Markham v. Cabell, 66 S.Ct. 193; A. H. Phillips, Inc., v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 493, 497, 498, 65 S.Ct. 807, 157 A.L.R. 876; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 571, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460; Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 66 S.Ct. 413; Phillips v. Star Overall Co., 2 Cir., 149 F. 2d 416, 420; Collins v. Kidd Dairy & Ice Co., 5 Cir., 132 F. 2d 79, 80; Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co., 4 Cir., 133 F. 2d 52, 54; Walling v. Peoples Packing Co., 10 Cir., 132 F. 2d 236.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw