Corcoran v. Halloran

• Citation: 20 S.D. 384,107 N.W. 210
• Parties: JAMES H. CORCORAN, Plaintiff and respondent, v. JAMES T. HALLORAN, Defendant and appellant.
• Decision Date: 03 April 1906
• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota

20 S.D. 384

107 N.W. 210

JAMES H. CORCORAN, Plaintiff and respondent, v. JAMES T. HALLORAN,

Defendant and appellant.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County, SD

Hon. W. G. Rice, Judge

Affirmed

Henry Frawley, E. J. Frawley

Attorneys for appellant.

Thos. E. Harvey

Attorneys for respondent.

Opinion filed, April 3, 1906

CORSON, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover of the defendant the sum of $635 alleged to be due him for work and labor performed by him as a miner. Verdict and judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.

The plaintiff, as will be noticed by the complaint hereafter copied, claimed that he performed work and labor for the defendant for 245 days at $3 per day. The defendant denied all the allegations of the complaint, and by his evidence sought to establish the fact that the work done by the plaintiff on the mine was done by him and his associates as lessees of the mine under a contract with the defendant, and not as an employee of the defendant. When the case was called for trial, the defendant objected to any evidence on the part of the plaintiff, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This objection was overruled. The complaint is as follows:

“The plaintiff complains and alleges:

(1) That the defendant owes and is indebted to the plaintiff for work and labor, as a miner and laborer on the Golden Crown mine, situated near Lead City, South Dakota, in the sum of seven hundred and thirty-five dollars ($735), no part of which has been paid except the sum of one hundred ($100) dollars.

(2) That the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to work in said mine on the 18th day of February, 1900, and so continued to work until the 21st day of October, 1900, as such laborer and miner; working two hundred and forty-five (245) days at $3.00 per day, being, in the aggregate, the sum of seven hundred thirty-five ($735) dollars. That no part of said total sum of seven hundred thirty-five ($735) dollars has been paid except as before stated, the sum of one hundred ($t00) dollars; and that there is now due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff for labor and miner’s wages the sum of six hundred thirty-five ($635) dollars, no part of which has been paid.”

The defendant contends that the complaint is defective, in that it fails to state that the labor was performed by the plaintiff at the defendant’s instance and request; that it fails to allege an express or implied promise to pay the plaintiff for service and labor; that the complaint fails to allege that the defendant was the owner of the mine in which the labor was performed; that the complaint fails to allege any contract express or implied on the part of the defendant; and that the complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff’s services were of the value of $3 per day, or that the defendant agreed to pay that amount. We are of the opinion that the contention of the appellant is untenable. It will be noticed that the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is indebted to him in the sum of $735, and states the ground of such indebtedness to be that the defendant employed him to work on the mine mentioned, on the 18th of February, 1900, and that he continued so to work for the defendant until the 21st day of October of the same year, 245 days at $3 per day; that no part of the amount has been paid except the sum of $100; and that there is still due him the amount of $635, which is unpaid. If these allegations are true, and we must assume that they are true for the purposes of this decision, then the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover the amount claimed. It is true he does not allege that the work was done at the special instance and request of the defendant, but, in lieu thereof, he alleges that he was employed by the defendant, which is certainly equivalent to the terms “special instance and request.” It is also true he does not allege in terms that his services were of the value of $3 per day, but fixing the price at $3 per day was in effect a claim that his services were worth that sum. Section 119 of the Revised Code of Civil Procedure of 1903 provides, among other things, as follows:

“The complaint shall contain: …

(2) A plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action, without unnecessary repetition.

(3) A demand of the relief to which the plaintiff supposes himself entitled.

If the recovery of money, be demanded, the amount thereof shall be stated.

The complaint in the case at bar fully complies with all the requirements of this section. It contains a concise statement of the facts constituting the cause of action. The object and purpose of the complaint is (1) to notify the defendant of the nature and amount of the plaintiff’s claim, and (2) to enable the court, in case the averments of the complaint are admitted by the answer or proven on the trial, to say as matter of law that the...