Ames v. D. J. Murray Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 836,114 Wis. 85
• Parties: AMES v. D. J. MURRAY MFG. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

114 Wis. 85

89 N.W. 836

AMES

v.D. J. MURRAY MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 1, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county; John K. Parish, Judge.

Action by William Ames against the D. J. Murray Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Action for damages for breach of contract of hiring for a definite time. Plaintiff claimed that on October 20, 1898, defendant hired him to work till the succeeding spring at $2 per day, and that in breach thereof, without any just cause, he was discharged December 10, 1898, whereby he was deprived of the opportunity to labor and earn wages for the balance of the term for which he was hired, to his damage in the sum which he might have earned had his contract not been wrongfully broken.

The evidence tended to prove that defendant placed one Burrows in charge of the work of constructing a mill; that Burrows hired and discharged men, and, generally, occupied the position of general foreman of the job; that pretending to have authority from defendant, about November 8, 1898, he offered to give plaintiff employment at $2 per day till the mill job should be completed if the latter would agree to stay right through; that plaintiff accepted such offer and commenced work under the contract thus made; that December 14th he was paid for all work theretofore performed by him, and was discharged without cause; that the work of constructing the mill lasted at least 90 days after such discharge, and that during such time plaintiff was able to and did earn $58 and no more.

The evidence for defendant was to the effect that Burrows did not have authority to hire any person to work on the mill job for a definite time. There was no evidence of any custom to hire laborers for definite periods of time in doing such work. On the contrary, the undisputed evidence was that it was customary not to hire in that way on such work.

The court instructed the jury in effect as follows: Evidence of custom is only to be considered as bearing on the question of whether defendant is right in its claim that plaintiff was not employed for a definite time. If plaintiff was employed by defendant, or defendant's authorized agent, for a definite time, as plaintiff claims, he is entitled to recover, regardless of whether the custom was to hire in some other way. Evidence of custom was allowed and is to be considered only as bearing on the understanding of the parties. If Burrows was held out by defendant as its agent, apparently with authority to make such contracts as plaintiff claims was made with him, and plaintiff acted in good faith in making such contract with Burrows, defendant is bound thereby regardless of what his authority was in fact.

The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for...