Huston v. Forsyth Scale Works

• Citation: 56 Mo. 416
• Parties: JAMES A. HUSTON, Respondent, v. FORSYTH SCALE WORKS, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1874
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

56 Mo. 416

JAMES A. HUSTON, Respondent,

v.FORSYTH SCALE WORKS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1874.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Leverett Bell, for Appellant.

T. A. Russell, for Respondent.

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was for damages for a breach of an alleged contract of hiring, set out in the petition in the following words: “That on or about the 25th of September, 1871, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby it was stipulated by and between plaintiff and defendant, that plaintiff should serve defendant for one year from said date in the capacity of manager and superintendent of the business house of defendant, then just established in the city of St. Louis; and that in consideration thereof, the defendant agreed and promised to pay plaintiff the sum of two thousand dollars for said year's service.” The breach stated was the discharge of plaintiff on November 30th, 1871, from the service of defendant; and damages for the breach were asked.

The answer denied that any contract for a year's service had been entered into between the parties; and alleged that about December 5th, 1871, plaintiff was discharged from defendant's service because he had become an habitual drunkard.

There was a reply denying the affirmative matter contained in the answer.

The plaintiff was the only witness examined upon the trial; and his testimony in full as preserved in the bill of exceptions was in the following words:

I am plaintiff in this cause. I was a member of the firm of Forsyth, Huston & Co., who sold out to the defendant. William Means was President, and Lewis was Superintendent of the Forsyth Scale Works, the defendant. They came here to buy out the business of Forsyth, Huston & Co., in the fall of 1871, about 16th to 18th of September. On the second day after they came, Means, the President wrote on a slip of paper and handed to me the following: “We would like a proposition from Mr. Huston for his services.” Next day, Lewis said to Means: “Have Huston and you settled on a salary yet?” He said, “No!” I then said, “My price is $2,500 a year.” This was about the 16th to the 18th of September. The next day Means and Lewis left for Cincinnati. The next I heard from this matter was about the 22d or 23d, when Mr. Clendenin came out as the book-keeper and financial agent of the house. He brought a letter from Mr. Means, which he handed to me. The letter was in words and figures as follows:

CINCINNATI, September 21, 1871.

JAMES A. HUSTON, ESQ., ST. LOUIS, MO.

Dear Sir: Mr. Lewis and I have signed the paper in accordance with the terms proposed, and Mr. Clendenin will close up the matter for us. I think Mr. C. should do as much office business as possible, and get familiar with that department, as a person of your experience should not be confined too much to the details of an office and books. Mr. Lewis and I have decided that we prefer you to wind up the business of F. H. & Co., and to continue in the management of the St. Louis house, but in consideration of our misfortunes and present poverty, cannot afford to pay you over the rate of 2 M. per annum for your services. If Mr. Garrison and myself succeed in organizing a new concern at St. Louis as proposed, I hope to make you more favorable terms. With kind regards to Mrs. Huston, I remain

Truly yours,

WILLIAM MEANS.

On receipt of this letter we began to take account of stock of old house, and turned it over to the new house, and on the 25th, the new house began, and on that day I began work as manager or superintendent of the new house under the contract as stated in the letter. Clendenin was book-keeper and managed the finances. I...