Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mills
| Decision Date | 09 June 1902 |
| Citation | 18 Colo.App. 8,69 P. 317 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. v. MILLS. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Appeal from El Paso county court.
Action by E.H. Mills against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Albert E. Pattison, for appellant.
This suit was brought by appellee against appellant before a justice of the peace. The cause went by appeal to the county court, where it was tried before a jury. The verdict was for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered on the verdict for $70 and the defendant appeals to this court.
The claim made by the plaintiff, as appears from his testimony, was that he was employed for the defendant as carpenter, and, as he furnished his own tools, was to receive for his work $55 per month. He worked 14 months, and at the end of each month received a time check for $50, to which was attached a receipt, to be signed by him, when the money should be paid to him. The money was regularly paid, and the receipt signed. The form of the time checks and receipts was exemplified by the following, given for November, 1898, the last month of the plaintiff's work, and introduced in evidence by the defendant:
Stamped across face:
The man with authority to employ carpenters and car repairers was the foreman of the roundhouse, Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams, together with Mr. Lucas, chief car inspector under him, made the contract with the plaintiff. When his first time check came, the plaintiff told Mr. Lucas that it was $5 short,--that it called for only $50,--and the latter said he would see to it. The subject was not mentioned to Mr. Adams. Prior to this employment, the plaintiff had been working for the defendant at $50 per month. When he received his final check, he protested that $55, and not $50, per month, was what he was to receive. Nevertheless he signed the receipt. He brought this suit to recover the unpaid $5 per month.
The testimony of Mr. Adams for the defendant was that his agreement to raise the plaintiff's wages $5 per month--thus making it $55 per month--was expressly conditioned upon his performance of the work of carpenter and car inspector, which work he never performed. That the defendant never assented to the plaintiff's claim of $55 per month is evident from the record. Aside from the testimony of Mr. Adams that he was not to receive that sum unless he rendered certain specified services, which he did not render, we have the fact that the time check for each month recited services as car repairer, and not as carpenter and allowed him $50, and not $55, for his work during that month. When the time check came into his hands, it advised him that the company classed him as car repairer, and proposed to pay him as wages $50 per month, and no more. With notice that the company placed its entire indebtedness to him for his month's work at $50, he took the money, and signed a paper, in which he acknowledged that his claim for the month was settled in full. It is laid down in the books in general terms that a receipt for money is only prima facie evidence of payment, and may be explained or contradicted by parol evidence. But the rule is applicable only to cases where the money is due and the amount is undisputed. If there is no disagreement as to the amount, a receipt for a less sum in full of the entire demand does not bind the creditor, because it is without consideration. But the rule does not apply to a payment made before the maturity of the debt, or to the acceptance of articles other than money in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. Nuhn
...by law, and a claim is liquidated when the amount due is “fixed by law,” or is fixed “by the obligation of law.” C., R. I. & P. Ry. v. Mills, 18 Colo. App. 8, 69 Pac. at 318, right col.; Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Meyer, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 7, 29 S. W. 97. The utmost scope of this rule ......
-
Harvey v. Denver & R.G.R. Co.
... ... v ... Bissell et al., 6 Colo. 162.' In C., R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v ... Mills, 18 Colo.App. 8, 11, 69 P. 317, 318, it is said: ... 'It is laid down in the books, in general ... ...
-
State v. Kelly
... ... of the term ... In ... Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mills, 18 Colo. App. 8, 69 ... P. 317, 318, it was held: "A claim is ... ...
-
Leonard v. Hallett
... ... Beardsley, ... 49 Colo. 275, 112 P. 770, 33 L.R.A. (N. S.) 852; C., R.I. & ... P. Co. v. Mills, 18 Colo.App. 8, 69 P. 317; 9 Cyc. 254; ... United States v. Child & Co., 12 Wall. 232, 20 L.Ed ... ...
-
Colorado's Prejudgment Interest Statute: Potential for Market Rate Interest
...when the amount due is fixed by law or has been ascertained and agreed upon by the parties. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mills, 18 Colo.App. 8, 69 P. 317 (1902). The mere fact that one disputes the amount due on a bill or on account does not render an account unliquidated. Western Oil Fiel......