Cholokovitch v. Porcupine Gold Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1913 |
| Citation | 73 Wash. 48,131 P. 459 |
| Parties | CHOLOKOVITCH v. PORCUPINE GOLD MINING CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman judge.
Action by Pete Cholokovitch against the Porcupine Gold Mining Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
H. R Clise and C. K. Poe, both of Seattle, for appellant.
Jackson Silbaugh, of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages which the plaintiff claims resulted to him from a breach of contract of employment, by which he was to work for the defendant at its mine in Alaska during the season of 1911. A trial before the court, without a jury, resulted in findings and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed.
Respondent is a resident of Seattle. Appellant is a corporation engaged in working a mine at Porcupine in Alaska. F. C. Hunter is the president of appellant, and George Charlton is a clerk in charge of the office of appellant at Porcupine. In the winter or early spring of 1911 Hunter was in Seattle where he had a conversation with respondent, resulting in an agreement between them that respondent should go to Porcupine and work for the appellant as a pick and shovel man in its mine during the season of 1911, his wages to be $3 per day and board, and that he would be notified by letter from Porcupine when to go there to commence work; the beginning of the season depending upon weather conditions in the spring. Soon thereafter Hunter went to Porcupine, and on April 24 1911, caused the following letter to be sent to respondent:
Respondent, in response to this letter, went from Seattle to Porcupine, paying his own way, and thereafter offered his services in compliance with the agreement has with Hunter while in Seattle. Respondent was then refused employment by appellant. He thereupon returned to Seattle, and during the period covered by the mining season of 1911 at Porcupine made reasonable efforts to obtain employment, but was unable to earn during that period near as much as he would have earned had appeallant employed him at Porcupine in compliance with the agreement. He was awarded judgment against the appellant for the amount he would have earned had he worked for it at Porcupine during the season of 1911, less the amount of his earnings at Seattle during that period. There is a well-recognized mining season at Porcupine during the spring, summer, and fall months; its length being controlled by the coming of spring and winter. This is the only uncertainty as to its length. When the conversation occurred between Hunter and respondent in Seattle, it is evident that appellant then intended to and thereafter did carry on its mining operations at Porcupine for the entire season of 1911, so that the amount respondent would have earned could be determined with reasonable certainty. While the evidence is in conflict, especially upon the question of employment for the whole of the season, we think the foregoing is a fair summary of the facts which the trial court was warranted in believing from the evidence, and which it evidently did believe in arriving at its decision.
The principal contention of counsel for appellant is, in substance, that the contract of employment was too indefinite and uncertain as to time to bind appellant for the entire mining season of 1911, or to bind appellant in any event except from day to day; the agreed wages of respondent being by the day. Counsel invoke the general rule of law that, in order to bind an employer for a particular term of employment, the contract of employment must be reasonable certain as to the length of such term. While this is...
To continue reading
Request your trial