16 Mo.App. 522 (Mo.App. 1885), Evans v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.

Citation:16 Mo.App. 522
Opinion Judge:ROMBAUER, J.
Party Name:A. M. EVANS, Respondent, v. ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
Attorney:H. G. HERBEL and BENNETT PIKE, for the appellant. R. W. GOODE and E. A. B. GARESCH
Case Date:February 10, 1885
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 522

16 Mo.App. 522 (Mo.App. 1885)

A. M. EVANS, Respondent,

v.

ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

February 10, 1885

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HORNER, J.

Reversed and remanded.

H. G. HERBEL and BENNETT PIKE, for the appellant.

R. W. GOODE and E. A. B. GARESCHÉ , for the respondent.

OPINION

ROMBAUER, J.

The plaintiff is a locomotive engineer. He sued the defendant, a railroad corporation, for wages alleged to be due to him. The action was instituted before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff obtained judgment by default for $141.62, the whole amount claimed. Upon trial in the circuit court, it appeared by the testimony that plaintiff was first employed to run a locomotive on mileage terms, and that subsequently on or about December 10, 1881, he was put in charge of a consolidated engine, as he claims on a hiring from month to month, and monthly wages of $115, and as defendant claims on a hiring for an indefinite period at a compensation at the rate of $115 per month. He was discharged without just cause, as he claims, and for just cause, as defendant claims, on the 23d of December, 1881.

The main controversy between the parties was as to whether the contract of hiring was, as plaintiff claimed it to be, or was as defendant claimed it to be.

While the case was pending on appeal in the circuit court, the plaintiff called upon defendant and received from its paymaster $54.60, executing at the time a receipt, of which the following is a copy:--

" St. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY,

TO A. M. EVANS. DR.
[St. Louis Division.]
For services as engineer under the direction of______on St. L. D., as returned on roll record, No. 40, check No. 245, and registered in the office of the general auditor, in the month of January, 1882, 17 3/4 days at $-- say doll. ??/100 per day; amount $67 35
Less board bill 12 75
Amount due $54 60
I certify the above to be a correct transcript from the roll above named, and that the same remains unpaid. J. T. K. ______, Clerk, General Auditor's Office. Dated 7, 26, 1882. Received of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company the sum of fifty-four 60-100 dollars ($54.60-100) in full for the above amount. A. M. EVANS....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP