21 A. 686 (Md. 1891), Lister's Agricultural Chemical Works v. Pender

Citation:21 A. 686, 74 Md. 15
Attorney:C. R. Goodwin and R. S. Culbreth, for appellant. John T. Mason, for appellee.
Case Date:March 24, 1891
Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 686

21 A. 686 (Md. 1891)

74 Md. 15




Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 24, 1891

Appeal from superior court of Baltimore city.

C. R. Goodwin and R. S. Culbreth, for appellant.

John T. Mason, for appellee.


This is an action of assumpsit brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover for alleged breach of contract in discharging the plaintiff from employment before the expiration of the time contracted for. The action was brought after the expiration of the term of alleged employment, and the claim is for the wages that would have been received if the plaintiff had been allowed to continue in the service of the defendant until the expiration of the term. The declaration contains the common counts for work and labor performed, money had and received, accounts stated, etc., and a special count on the contract of employment. The defendant pleaded never indebted as alleged, and never promised as alleged; and the case was tried before the court without the aid of a jury.

The plaintiff was by vocation a traveling salesman, and he entered the service of the defendant, according to his testimony, on the 3d of January, 1888, the first two days of that month being observed as holidays. As evidence of the contract of employment the plaintiff produced a letter of the defendant, addressed to him at Baltimore, Md., dated January 4, 1888, in which it is stated: "We will give you one hundred ($100) dollars per month, to travel and sell and collect for us, as we may direct. When not on the road, you to assist in the general office work. We will guaranty you employment, at least, until the 1st of July, 1888, in exchange for your best efforts, and feel sure it will result in a permanent engagement." This letter was duly signed by the defendant, and delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued his services until the 1st of July, 1888, according to the contract, and at that time, nothing being said and no disagreement having occurred, he continued on as usual, performing the same duties and receiving the same salary, and so until the second period of six months had passed, and the third period of six months of service had been entered upon by the plaintiff; the defendant all the while accepting the services of the plaintiff with apparent satisfaction, and paying the salary according to the terms of the...

To continue reading