Boothe v. Ratcliffe

• Citation: 12 S.E. 112,107 N.C. 6
• Parties: BOOTHE v. RATCLIFFE.
• Decision Date: 28 October 1890
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 112

107 N.C. 6

BOOTHE v. RATCLIFFE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 28, 1890

Appeal from superior court, Vance county; BOYKIN, Judge.

Action by Peter Boothe against Robert Ratcliffe for $21.86 as wages for work on defendant's farm from January 1 to March 22 1890. Defendant denied plaintiff's right to recover claiming that he owed him nothing, and alleging that plaintiff had hired to him for the year 1890, and left March 22, 1890, without cause. He admitted payment to plaintiff of one dollar on his wages. Plaintiff admitted the hiring was for a year, but claimed that he left defendant's employment for cause. Upon the trial plaintiff offered himself as a witness in his own behalf, and testified that he contracted to work for defendant on his farm during the year 1890 for $100, and was to be allowed 12 holidays, and be furnished a house to stay in by defendant; that, if either party became dissatisfied during the year with the bargain he was to stop work; that at the time the contract was made nothing was said about when the money should be paid; that afterwards defendant told him he would pay him from time to time during the year, as he had it, and plaintiff might need it, and asked plaintiff if he would sue him if he could not pay it all cash by the end of the year; that he (plaintiff) told defendant this would be satisfactory; that he would take portions of his wages whenever defendant desired to pay it that defendant paid plaintiff one dollar on his said wages in February; that the house in which defendant put plaintiff leaked very badly, and wet plaintiff's bed frequently, and that plaintiff frequently asked defendant to repair the same, or patch the roof, or allow plaintiff to do so, but defendant would not, and that on March 22d plaintiff left defendant's employment for no other reason than that the house he was required to occupy was unfit to live in. Upon this evidence plaintiff rested, and the trial judge thereupon stated that he would instruct the jury that, upon plaintiff's own showing, he was not entitled to recover, and he did so instruct them, and upon his instructions the jury found for the defendant. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Where nothing was said when a contract of hiring was made as to when the servant should be paid, but afterwards the master said that he would pay from time to time during the year, and paid a portion, there was no contract,...