Opinion
15557
July 6, 1943.
Before E.H. HENDERSON, J., Anderson County, February, 1943. Affirmed.
Action by Our Cotton Mills against St. Mary's Hospital and others to enjoin enforcement of certain wage assignments. From Judgment for Plaintiff, Defendants appeal.
The Circuit Order of Judge Henderson, unanimously adopted as the opinion of the Court, as follows:
Fifteen employees of Orr Cotton Mills received treatment at St. Mary's Hospital and from Dr. C.S. Breedin, and executed to them partial assignments of their future wages. These were represented by notes were instruments in writing in which each of the parties assigned varying sums each week or month out of his wages to apply on the note, and authorized his "employer or employers whoever they may be or wherever they may be" to pay this sum to the defendants. The amount of wages assigned varied in the different instruments from $1.00, $2.00, and $3.00 per week to $10.00 per month. The defendants presented true copies of these assignments to the mill and it refused to accept them, and no part of the wages earned by the assignors from the plaintiff since the date of the assignments has been paid to the defendants by the mill, nor deducted by it from the wages of such employees. This action in equity is brought by the plaintiff, seeking to enjoin the defendants from demanding and requiring the acceptance or recognition of the assignments, and from proceeding to enforce any liability thereon upon the plaintiff.
The law as to partial assignments of future wages has been clearly settled by the case of Pacific Mills v. Textile Workers' Union, 197 S.C. 330, 15 S.E.2d 134, 136, 135 A.L.R., 497. It was there shown that "while the Courts of this State recognize a partial assignment of a chose in action as an equitable assignment and will protect the assignee when they can do so without working a hardship upon the debtor, yet the enforcement of such partial assignment can only be had in a Court of Equity;" and that if a partial assignment does work a substantial hardship upon the debtor it will not be enforced by the Court.
The plaintiff in the present case objects to being forced to honor the assignments, on the ground that to do so would impose a substantial hardship upon it.
The defendants, on the other hand, contend that the assignments would not place an unjust burden or hardship upon the plaintiff.
The question to be determined, therefore, is narrowed down to this: Does the evidence show that the acceptance of the assignments would work a hardship upon the Orr Cotton Mills?
I have given careful consideration to the testimony in this case, and it is my opinion that the enforcement of the assignments against the mill would result in a substantial hardship upon it. The mill finds it difficult to get experienced office workers, and is already greatly occupied in its clerical department by government requirements under the Social Security Law, 42 U.S.C.A., § 201 et seq., and the handling of the Victory Tax. Three employees have been added in the office. Though its paymasters and office force are now fully engaged so that they have no spare time, the handling of these assignments would entail upon it one hour per week of additional clerical work. The assignments run for various lengths of time. One will run as long as 215 weeks, which is about four years, and it may last even longer if that employee should become ill and not work regularly. When some of the smaller notes are paid in full, there would, of course, be fewer than fifteen remaining. There would be necessary at least 1,300 deductions from the payroll of the employees. The mill has about one thousand employees, whom it pays weekly. They work in different departments, and are sometimes transferred from one department to another. On the payroll they are listed according to the department in which they work. It will be necessary to look through all the names to pick out those who have made assignments. The burden here would be greater than would any fifteen assignments in the Pacific Mills case, since there the assignments were regularly $1.00 per month for each assignor, while here the amounts vary from $1.00 a week to $10.00 a month, and also vary as to the length of time the deductions are to be made. It seems to me that it would clearly be a hardship upon the mill to have to bear the expense and loss of time entailed by honoring these assignments, at its peril and without compensation, performing work which a collector employed by the hospital could do equally as well, and thereby place upon the hospital the expense of collecting rather than have it fall upon the mill. In addition to the hardship of actual expense, labor and loss of time, it seems that the mill would run a risk as to several legal matters.
It would be responsible, without compensation, for errors on its part, since it is a criminal offense for a cotton mill to fail to pay its employees weekly. Code, 7034-1. With reference to the assignments to be paid $10.00 monthly, a difference could well arise as to how the mill could apportion this, when the employees must be paid weekly, and not by the month. Would the entire $10.00 be taken out of the first week's pay, or would it be divided into $2.50 for four weeks? The pay of the individual employee varies from week to week, and the amount for one week does not generally have a margin of $10.00 after paying the store and house rent. What would be the effect if an employee worked two weeks and lay off the other two weeks? Could he claim that the mill should have collected all $10.00 the first two weeks or could such claim be made by the hospital?
In many instances the years for which the assignments are to be good are not stated. It is possible that a controversy might arise as to what years were intended. It may be that the mill would have to defend actions in which it was claimed either that deductions were wrongfully made, or that the plaintiff wrongfully failed to make them.
I think that the difference between the hardship here and that in the Pacific Mills case is in degree only. In view of the decision in that case, I do not see how I could hold that the imposing of an hour a week of extra work without compensation, and the attendant risks, would not be a substantial burden.
The defendants say that these assignments would not entail as much bookkeeping or expense upon the mill as are now caused by the government requirements, and point to the fact that the mill now honors certain assignments from the store, for life insurance, house rent, fuel, and from the Anderson County Hospital. It seems to me that even if the mill is willing to accept some assignments, this would not prevent it from refusing to accept others, since a person has a right, if he so desires, to assume in one instance, a burden which the law would not otherwise impose upon him, without depriving himself of the right to insist upon legal observance in other cases. Of course no element of estoppel could arise.
It being my conclusion, therefore, that there would be here a substantial hardship, I think that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which it seeks.
It is, therefore ordered that the defendants and each of them be, and each of them hereby is, enjoined and perpetually restrained from demanding and requiring of the plaintiff the acceptance, honoring, or recognition of the assignments of future wages involved in this action, and from proceeding, or attempting to proceed, in law or in equity, to enforce any liability thereon upon the plaintiff, its officers or agents.
Mr. Leon L. Rice, of Anderson, S.C. Counsel for Appellants, cites: As to Employer recognizing Employee's Assignment of Wages: 146 S.C. 520, 144 S.E., 231; 170 S.C. 160, 169 S.E., 846; 197 S.C. 33, at 334, 15 S.E.2d 134; 136 S.C. 179, 134 S.E., 285. As to Right of Employee to Assign Future Wages: 5 C.J., 869; 5 Ann. Cas., 65-n; 209 III., 252, 70 N.E., 564; 65 L.R.A., 602; 101 A.S.R., 233; 13 S.C. 112, S.C. 112, 37 A.R., 724; 146 S.C. 520, at 523, 144 S.E., 231; 132 S.C. 174.
Messrs. Watkins Prince, of Anderson S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cite: As to the Law of the Case: 197 S.C. 330, 15 S.E.2d 134; 135 A.L.R., 497; 115 S.C. 452-459, 106 S.E., 452, 459.
July 6, 1943.
The order of his Honor, Judge Henderson, from which this appeal was taken, properly disposes of the only issue argued by appellants. It is adopted as the judgment of this Court and will be reported. The exceptions are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
MESSRS. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES BAKER, FISHBURNE and STUKES, and CIRCUIT JUDGE T.S. SEASE, ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, concur.