Beale v. Yazoo Yarn Mill

• Decision Date: 23 May 1921
• Docket Number: 21264
• Citation: 125 Miss. 807,88 So. 411
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BEALE v. YAZOO YARN MILL

88 So. 411

125 Miss. 807

BEALE v. YAZOO YARN MILL

No. 21264

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 23, 1921

1. MASTER AND SERVANT. "Willfully entice away or knowingly employ" servant implies actual knowledge.

In an action brought by an employer against a third person for willfully interfering with, enticing, or knowingly employing a servant (who had entered into a contract for a given period), without obtaining the consent of the employer, it was error to charge the jury that it would find for the plaintiff if the defendant at the time of the hiring "knew or ought to have kopwn that said contract had not expired." The words of the statute "shall willfully interfere with, entice away, or knowingly employ" mean that the party hiring must have known of the contract at the time of the hiring, and not that he might have known by diligent or reasonable inquiry. The knowledge must exist at the time of the hiring.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT. Instruction on knowledge of prior hiring held incorrect.

In such case it is reversible error to instruct the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant had notice of any fact or circumstance sufficient to put an ordinarily prudent person upon inquiry, and that such inquiry would have developed the fact that the laborer's contract had not expired, and after such fact or circumstance came to defendant's notice he hired the tenant while the contract was in effect, to find for plaintiff. The knowledge of the first contract must exist at the time of the hiring, and mere circumstances which in themselves are insufficient to impute knowledge, but which must be coupled with other facts which would or might be disclosed by inquiry, do not supply the requisite proof.

3. MASTER AND SERVANT. Instruction on ratification of breach of contract of hiring by continuing in service held incorrect.

In an action by an employer against another for hiring a servant before his contract of service expired, where the evidence for the defendant showed a breach of the contract by the employer prior to the hiring by the defendant, it was error to instruct for the plaintiff that, even though the jury may believe from the evidence that one or more of the servant's family were discharged without cause, or that the servant or members of his family were occasionally laid off without cause, and notwithstanding these facts the servants continued after such facts in the employment and worked under his contract, this constituted a ratification of the contract under its terms as originally made.

4. MASTER AND SERVANT. Instruction on good faith as defense to charge of wrongful hiring held erroneously refused.

Where an employer of a laborer brings an action against another for wrongful hiring of the servant of the plaintiff before the end of his term of service, and where the evidence for the defense shows, or tends to prove, that the employer breached his contract by discharging members of the servant's family, whose service is embraced in the contract, it is error to refuse the defendant an instruction to the effect that if the servant told the defendant that he and members of his family had been discharged and that plaintiff had told servant to take his boy and go to the farm, and that the defendant, in good faith, believed such statements were true at the time of the hiring the jury should find for the defendant, even though such statements were not true in fact.

HON. W H. POTTER, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Yazoo county, HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.

Action by the Yazoo Yarn Mill against R. M. Beale Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

E. L Brown, for appellant.

J. G Holmes, for appellee.

No brief found in the record for either side.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

The appellee sued the appellant for knowingly employing, willfully interfering with, and enticing away employees under the provisions of section 1146, Code of 1906 (section 874, Hemingway's Code); the affidavit reciting:

"That the said defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, heretofore willfully interfered with, enticed away, induced to leave plaintiff's employment and knowingly employed one J. S. Porter, a laborer, who was then and there under a contract of employment with the plaintiff for a specified time, said contract not having expired, the said defendant then and there well knowing that the plaintiff's contract with the said Porter has not expired. To the great damage," etc.

The contract relied on in support of the declaration reads as follows:

"This contract, made and entered into this 14th day of September A. D. 1918, by and between Yazoo Yarn Mill, party of the first part, and J. S. Porter, party of the second part, witnesseth:

"That for and in consideration of the sum of ninety dollars, cash in hand paid to the party of the second part by the party of the first part, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the party of the second part hereby agrees to move himself and his family to the said mill, before the expiration of two days, and to work for the said mill for current wages to be paid himself and the members of his family; the party of the second part agrees to render good and faithful and efficient services to said mill, and agrees that two dollars and fifty cents per week, due to himself or any member of his family, for wages, may be deducted by said mill and applied on any indebtedness due said mill; that in case of controversy, or in the event of the termination of this contract, all sums due the party of the second part or any member of his family may be applied in full to any indebtedness due said mill by the party of the second part; that the party of the first part has employed the party of the second part, and the party of the second part has agreed to work for the party of the first part, at said mill, for current wages for a term beginning the 16th day of September, 1918, and ending the 1st day of May, 1919; that the services to be rendered under this contract are such as may be prescribed by the superintendent of said mill or its overseers.

"Witness our hands this 14th day of September, 1918.

"[Signed]

Yazoo Yarn Mill, by M. W. Driver, Mgr., Party of the First Part. J. S. Porter, Etta May, Estell, Eugene, by J. S. Porter, Party of Second Part."

The manager of the appellant testified to the making of the contract and to advancing Porter ninety dollars to pay off an account which he then owed for which the appellant, Beale, was responsible by way of guaranty; that he took the said Porter and his family to the mill and they entered into the service of the yarn mill. He testified that on or about the 26th day of December, 1918, he had a conversation with Mr. Beale in which he told Mr. Beale that he heard he was going to move Porter and that Beale said that was true; that he told him that if he did he would be subject to damages; that there was a law in the state and that people generally abided by court decisions and jury verdicts; that in the latter part of January Beale moved Porter upon his place, away from the mill; that Porter still owed part of the money advanced, sixty-three dollars and fifteen cents, for which this suit was brought. He denied that he had authorized Beale to hire Porter or Porter to abandon his employment, and denied breaching the contract in any respect or discharging any of the members of the family under the contract, except Porter's youngest child, whose age was such as to make it doubtful whether he could work in the mill, and except that he laid off Porter for about two hours one day after he found out he was going to quit anyway, or was dissatisfied.

Beale testified to a conversation on December 26th and gives a different version of what transpired from that of the manager, Driver. Beale says he was asked whether he was contemplating moving Porter on his farm and he told Driver the manager, that he was; that Porter had said he could not make a living at the mill on account of not getting work for all the members of his family, and that he had promised to give him employment; that the manager stated that he had a contract with Porter, but that he (Beale) did not know the duration of the contract; that in the conversation he told the manager that he did not contemplate moving Porter right away; that it would be all right for the mill to work Porter until about the 1st of March, and that the manager said he would be mighty glad to do that and agreed to work Porter until the 1st of March following; that afterwards he saw Porter's children idle and asked Porter why they were not working and that Porter told him they had been laid off or discharged; that after this conversation with Porter he saw Porter idle and asked why he was not working, and that Porter told him he had gone to the foreman and told the foreman unless they could work his children and give them employment that he could not work as he could not make a living without the help of his children, and that the foreman would not agree to take his son back at the mill, but told Porter to take them and go to the farm; that he was tired of fooling with them. Beale further testified that he believed in good faith what Porter had said and that he had traded with Porter believing what Porter had related as stated above. Porter corroborated Beale's statements and said he was not finally employed by Beale until after they were all laid off and the foreman had refused to re-employ his son. Porter's wife and daughter also testified, in effect, that the daughter had been discharged or laid off several different times, and that his wife had gone to the foreman and requested that he give employment to the daughter, as Mr. and Mrs. Porter had a...