138 Cal. 320, L. A. 949, Davidson v. Laughlin

• Judge: JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J. Beatty, C. J., Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.
• Parties: A. N. DAVIDSON, Respondent, v. HOMER LAUGHLIN, Appellant
• Citation: 71 P. 345,138 Cal. 320
• Date: 14 January 1903
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Docket Number: L. A. 949

Page 320

138 Cal. 320

71 P. 345

A. N. DAVIDSON, Respondent,

v.

HOMER LAUGHLIN, Appellant

L. A. No. 949

Supreme Court of California

January 14, 1903

Page 321

Rehearing Denied.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying a new trial. J. W. Mahon, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL:

Russ Avery, and Bicknell, Gibson & Trask, for Appellant.

A contract for employment for an indefinite time is terminable at the will of either party. (Lord v. Goldberg , 81 Cal. 596; ¹ Perry v. Wheeler, 12 Bush, 541; Elderton v. Emmons, 4 Mann. G. & S. 478; 56 Com. L. Rep. 478; Harper v. Hassard , 113 Mass. 187; Coffin v. Landis , 46 Pa. St. 431.)

J. S. Chapman, and Ward Chapman, for Respondent.

The contract for future employment should receive a reasonable construction, and was to employ the plaintiff for a reasonable time, until there was good reason to sever the relation. (Jones v. Trinity Parish , 19 F. 59, 61-64; Coleman v. Insurance Co ., 49 Ohio St. 310; ² Pollak v. Brush Assn ., 128 U.S. 446; More v. Bonnet , 40 Cal. 251;

[³ Carnig v. Carr , 167 Mass. 544; ⁴ Pennsylvania Co. v. Dolan , 6 Ind.App. 109, 51; ⁵ Hobbs v. Brush Light Co ., 75 Mich. 550; Boardman v. Ward , 40 Minn. 399; ⁶ McMullin v. Dickinson , 63 Minn. 405; Jessup v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co ., 82 Iowa 243; Carter White Lead Co. v. Kinlin, 47 Neb. 409; East Line R. R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70; ⁷ Smith v. St. Paul R. R. Co ., 60 Minn. 330; Warren Chemical and M. Co. v. Holbrook , 118 N.Y. 586; ⁸ Harrington v. Kansas R. R. Co ., 66 Mo.App. 223.) The contract having been broken by the defendant, plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable value of the services rendered. (Adams v. Pugh , 7 Cal. 150; Castagnanno v. Balletta , 82 Cal. 257; Cox v. McLaughlin , 76 Cal. 60; ⁹ Hartman v. Rogers , 69 Cal. 643; Whitten v. Sullivan , 96 Cal. 480; Decamp v. Hewett, 11 Rob. (La.) 290. ¹⁰)

JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J. Beatty, C. J., Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.

OPINION

McFARLAND, Judge

Page 322

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The action is for the recovery of the reasonable value of certain services rendered by plaintiff to defendant. These facts were averred in the complaint and found by the court: Plaintiff was in the employment of defendant from the first day of October, 1896, to the twenty-fifth day of July, 1898; but for services rendered prior to May 1, 1897, plaintiff was paid, and they form no part of the matters here in litigation. As to what plaintiff was to receive for his services after May 1, 1897, there was no express agreement between the parties until June 20th of that year. Defendant was then engaged in the erection of a six-story building, and it was in connection with this building and some other matters that plaintiff was employed. The parties on said June 20th had a conference about what plaintiff's compensation should be during the progress of the construction of the building, which resulted [71 P. 346] in a contract that when the building should be completed and the tenants should commence to pay rent, plaintiff should be permanently employed by defendant as his agent in the management of the building, "keeping the same rented and collecting the rents and attending to the repairs and all other useful services in that proper management of the said building"; and that defendant would pay for his services as such agent one hundred and fifty dollars per month; and plaintiff, in consideration that he be so employed as agent after the completion of the building, and paid said compensation, agreed that he would take for his services from May 1, 1897, to the time of the completion of the building sixty dollars per month. The building was completed and tenants commenced to pay rent on July 12, 1898; but on July 25th, thirteen days later, "without any reasonable or lawful cause or excuse whatever, the defendant discharged plaintiff from his employment," and has ever since refused to allow him to perform any services as such agent or to pay him therefor. The reasonable value of the plaintiff's services from May 1, 1897, to the time of his discharge, on July 25, 1898, was one hundred and fifty dollars per month, amounting to $ 2,225. Of this amount five hundred dollars had been...