Allen v. Mutual Compress Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1893
• Parties: ALLEN v. MUTUAL COMPRESS CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 362

101 Ala. 574

ALLEN v. MUTUAL COMPRESS CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 21, 1893

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.

Action by Osborn Allen against the Mutual Compress Company on a contract of hiring by plaintiff to defendant. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Richardson & Reese, for appellant.

Brickell Semple & Gunter, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

The questions presented in the record for consideration arise from the construction of a provision in a written contract of employment. The defendant employed the plaintiff for a period of five months, at two dollars per day, to sew and tie cotton bales for the compress. After serving a little over one month, the defendant paid the plaintiff for the time of service rendered, and discharged him, claiming that under the contract it had the right to discharge the defendant whenever it became dissatisfied with the services of the defendant and that it was the sole judge of the sufficiency of the cause. The provision of the contract under which this right is claimed is as follows: "We guaranty to give satisfaction in sewing and tying or any other work that we may be required to do." The defense to the complaint was that plaintiff failed to give satisfaction. The authorities are not altogether harmonious. In some it is held that a stipulation of similar import in a contract arms the party for whose benefit it was made with unquestioned authority to consult only his own judgment, will, or feelings, and the reasonableness of the grounds of dissatisfaction is not a matter of inquiry. Cline v. Libby, (Wis.) 49 N.W 832; Gibson v. Cranage, 33 Amer. Rep. 351, and authorities cited in note; McCarren v. McNulty, 7 Gray, 139; Tyler v. Ames, 6 Lans. 280. On the other hand, there are authorities which hold that an employer cannot dismiss his servant without actual cause. Jones v Transportation Co., (Mich.) 16 N.W. 893; Daggett v Johnson, 49 Vt. 345. The latter case grew out of a purchase of milk pans, and the stipulation was that the purchaser was to pay for them "if satisfied with the pans." The supreme court held "that the defendant had no right to say without cause that he was dissatisfied, and would not pay for the pans;" "that the dissatisfaction must be actual, not feigned; real, not merely pretended." It seems to us the latter authorities render nugatory an important provision in the...