Слике страница
[blocks in formation]

Ibele, Gerhardt v.

33 In re Berger.

401 In re Connell.

311 In re Hawley.

1 In re Johnson.

566 In re Jones Law Petition. 449 In re Major.

161 In re Skahn.

401 In re Thatcher. 273 and 497 Insurance Co., Siebert v......

... 210 International Union, Belle vue Brewing Co. V...

257 Interurban Ry., Hopman v.... 543

P., C., C. & St. L. Ry., Columbus Plow Co. v.

81 P., C., C. & St. L. Ry., Pritz v. 481 Papner v. Harmon...

49 Patterson v. Patterson.

601 Pebble, Elsea v.

468 Peoples Bank & Savings Co., Cereguti v.

159 Peoples Salary Loan Co., Cain V..

441 Peters v. Firestone..

609 Porter, Trustees Southern Railway V.

353 Postna v. Lakewood.

513 Price, State v.

349 Pritz v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. 481

[blocks in formation]

Railway v. Cincinnati..... 65 Railway, Columbus Plow Co. V. 81 Railway y. Commissioners Hamilton County

129 Railway v. Dittey.

93 Railway, Hopman v.

543 Railway, Miller v.

683 Railway v. Porter.

353 Railway, Pritz v.

481 Rawson v. Olds Motor Works. 145 Rider, Stasel v.


L. & N. Ry. v. Cincinnati... 65 L. S. & M. S. Ry., Miller v. 683 Lakewood, Postna v.

513 Lawson v. McDougal.

650 Ley v. Cash...

523 Lorain, State ex rel v.

636 Lorain Democrat, State ex rel v...


McDougal, Lawson v...
McGill, Bowers v.
McGuffey, Fleming v.
McIlrath v. Zelany.
McMillan v. McMillan.
Major, In re.
Meade v. Hawkins.



Sayre, State ex rel McGan. non V.

13 Sayre, State ex rel Tax Commission v......

52 Sayre. State ex rel Sartain v.. 61 Sayre, State ex rel Grandview Heights v.

120 Sayre, State ex rel Turner v.. 337 Schultze Co., Gott v...

206 Second National Bank, Healy v. 193 Seibert v. Fire Ins. Co....... 210

[blocks in formation]

Sharp v. State....

441 Skahn, In re.

401 Slanski, Gaughan v.

59 Smith v. American Assurance Co.

97 Stadler v. Cleveland.

321 Stage v. Coughlin..

419 Star Distilling Co. v. Mihalo vitch-Fletcher Co....

113 Stasel v. Rider....

141 State v. Coshocton Gas Co.... 570 State v. Federal Union Surety Co.

185 State v. Price.

349 State, Sharp v.

441 State, Theobald v.

390 State v. Woolard..

395 State ex rel v. Bish.

369 State ex rel v. Branson.

590 State ex rel v. Cooper.

659 State ex rel v. Dittey.

319 State ex rel v. Edmondson. 577 State ex rel v. Ferris.... 171 State ex rel v. Kellerman. 681 State ex rel v. Lorain.

636 State ex rel v. Lorain Democrat

529 State ex rel McGannon v.... Sayre

13 State ex rel Tax Commission v. Sayre...

52 State ex rel Sartain v. Sayre.. 61

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]






Common Pleas Court of Franklin County.


Decided, October 7, 1911.

Constitutional Law-Validity of Act Relating to Female Operatives—

Sale and Purchase of LaborFreedom of ContractPrivate Right and Public Welfare-Contrariety of Decision, Owing in Part to Changing Commercial and Industrial Conditions, Financial Cupid

ity and the Blunting of High Purpose102 0. L., 488. . The act of May 31, 1911, relating to preservation of the health of

females employed in manufacturing, mechanical, mercantile and other establishments, is not in derogation of the constitutional right of freedom of contract, nor is the classification arbitrary or the exemption unreasonable which is therein established, but the act is justified on the ground of public health, morals and the gen.

eral welfare, and is valid and enforcible. Sheets, West & Game and J. L. Hampton, for Anna Hawley. T. S. Hogan and C. D. Laylin, contra.


By writ of habeas corpus the applicant seeks release from arrest, charged with violating the act of May 31, 1911 (102 0. L., 488). This act provides for a number of conveniences such as

[blocks in formation]

chairs, suitable and separate toilet and dressing rooms, waterclosets, ventilation, etc., for female employes. Among other things provided for in this act is the following:

“Females over eighteen years of age shall not be employed or permitted or suffered to work in or in connection with any factory, workshop, telephone or telegraph office, millinery, or dressmaking establishment, restaurant, or in the distributing or transmission of messages more than ten hours in any one day, or more than fifty-four hours in any one week, but meal time shall not be included as a part of the work hours of the week or day, provided, however, that no restriction as to the hours of labor shall apply to canneries or establishments engaged in preparing for use perishable goods."

Violation of this provision by any employer is punishable by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars. The applicant through her counsel claims that the foregoing provision of said act is void and unconstitutional and bases this contention upon three propositions:

First, that the freedom of the right to contract both on the part of an employer and on the part of an employe, as well as the right to enforce such contracts, are guaranteed to all the people by Sections 1 and 19 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Ohio and also by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that any legislative act which limits this freedom of contract must fail, unless it shall appear to the court that such limitation is necessary for the public welfare, that is to say, for the protection of public health or safety or morals.

Second, that freedom of contract with reference to the sale and purchase of labor is as much protected as freedom of contract with reference to any subject or in any other respect.

Third, that the Legislature can not constitutionally make any arbitrary, artificial, fictitious or capricious classification so as to make an act apply to a certain person or persons engaged in some particular line of enterprise, while others coming within the same general class are exempt.

It is well settled law not only of this state but of all the states of the United States, that it becomes the duty of a court to de

« ПретходнаНастави »