Alford v. Pegues
| Decision Date | 20 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 13,033 |
| Citation | 92 Miss. 558,46 So. 76 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGE W. ALFORD v. MALACHI C. PEGUES |
FROM the circuit court of Lafayette county, HON. JAMES B. BOOTHE Judge.
Alford appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Pegues appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant's favor plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The action was based upon chapter 102, p. 140, of Laws 1900 (Code 1906, § 1146), which is as follows:
"If any person shall willfully interfere with, entice away knowingly employ, or induce a laborer or renter who has contracted with another person for a specified time to leave his employer or the leased premises before the expiration of his contract, without the consent of the employer or landlord, he shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, and in addition shall be, liable to the employer or landlord for all advances made by him to said renter or laborer by virtue of his contract with said renter or laborer, and for all damages which he may have sustained by reason thereof."
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
Falkner & Russell, for appellant.
The sole question considered by the court below was "Can this action be maintained by the appellant against the appellee for knowingly employing Jim Goolsby who had contracted for the year 1906 without ever having gone upon the leased premises?" The court held that it could not be maintained and upon this theory excluded all of the evidence for the plaintiff below and gave the peremptory instruction complained of on this appeal.
We respectfully submit that under the section of the Code involved, if a man contract in writing with another for a specific time, and before the expiration of the time, without the consent of the employer another shall interfere by employing the other, he has violated the statute and is liable for damage. See Armistead v. Chatters, 71 Miss. 512, 15 So. 39.
Appellant entered into contract with Goolsby in October, 1905, to cultivate land in the year 1906 and to do certain work thereon in the way of clearing land, improving and repairing house, etc. This was well known to the appellee, who with that knowledge, employed or rented land to Goolsby for the year 1906, thereby preventing him from complying with his contract with the appellant at all; this was done without the consent of appellant and against his protest, and before the expiration of his contract with Goolsby. The appellee cannot be heard to say in defense of this action that Goolsby had not entered upon his employment or upon the leased premises. The statute is in the disjunctive--"If any person shall knowingly employ" as well as entice away or induce to leave or interfere with the employee or tenant, then he is guilty and liable for the damage and it makes no difference that nothing had been done by the employee in the actual discharge of his contract or obligation. The case relied on by the appellee in 79 Miss. 368, has no application because that was a criminal case, and the defendant entitled to a strict construction of the statute; the prosecution was based solely on the ground that the defendant had abandoned his contract and entered into the employ of another, that is, the employee had violated the statute by abandoning his contract and leaving the leased premises--in that case the court very properly held there was no violation of the statute, but here, the action is against the man who knowingly employed the tenant of another, without his consent and before the expiration of his contract and it makes no difference whether he had ever gone on the place or not.
C. L. Sivley, for appellee.
Whether there was a contract between appellee and Goolsby during the year 1906 is totally immaterial. It is emphatically stated by appellant that Goolsby never, in fact, entered upon the leased premises in furtherance of the contract with appellant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Duckworth
... ... Hendricks ... v. State, 79 Miss. 368; Jackson v. State, 13 So ... 935; Jackson v. State, 16 So. 299; Alford v ... Pegues, 92 Miss. 558, 46 So. 76; Evans v. State, 121 ... Miss. 252, 83 So. 167 ... The ... peremptory instruction requested by ... ...
-
Thompson v. Box
...actually entered upon the performance of the service. Such is the holding in Hendricks v. State, 79 Miss. 368, 30 So. 708; Alford v. Pegues, 92 Miss. 558, 46 So. 76; v. State, 121 Miss. 252, 83 So. 167; and similar cases. In the next place, there must have been no breach of the contract on ......
-
Shilling v. State
... ... such prior relationship. Sneed v. Gilman, 44 So ... 830. See, also, Evans v. State, 83 So. 167; ... Jackson v. State, 16 So. 299; and Alford v ... Pegues, 92 Miss. 558, wherein the rule is stated as ... follows: "Mere hiring of another who has breached his ... contract is no violation ... ...
-
Evans v. State
...State, 79 Miss. 368, 30 So. 708, the court put a strict construction upon a similar statute in favor of the defendant. In Alford v. Pegues, 92 Miss. 558, 46 So. 76, the present statute was under review. In that case a civil suit was instituted against the offender of the statute. In that ca......