Cutter v. Gillette
| Decision Date | 27 February 1895 |
| Citation | 163 Mass. 95,39 N.E. 1010 |
| Parties | CUTTER v. GILLETTE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Defendant agreed to employ plaintiff for a term of five years, but discharged him after three months of service. At the trial in the superior court before Robert R. Bishop J., it appeared that plaintiff sold his carriage manufacturing business to defendant, and, after being discharged, undertook to carry on the business of carriage repairing on his own account, but was unable to do so. On cross-examination plaintiff was asked if he was able to get credit to carry on the business, the defendant's counsel stating that he put the question for the purpose of showing that plaintiff's personal reputation was such that he could not get credit. The question was excluded, and defendant excepted.
Hesseltine & Hesseltine, for plaintiff.
W.M Noble, for defendant.
The evidence offered and excluded upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff was, in effect, that his personal reputation as to credit among dealers was so poor that he could not get credit to carry on the business in which he attempted to work after his wrongful discharge from the defendant's service. Assuming that the defendant was entitled to show that the plaintiff might have earned more money than he did between the time of his discharge and the time of trial evidence of the plaintiff's poor reputation for credit among dealers did not tend to show that he could have succeeded in the business, and it was rightly excluded, as it might have had a tendency to prejudice the jury against the plaintiff. If it did not have that effect, its only tendency would seem to be to enhance the plaintiff's damages. We do not see how the defendant was harmed by the exclusion of the evidence.
The exception to the refusal to instruct the jury to the effect that if the plaintiff, after his discharge, began to do business on his own account, he could not recover damages relating to the period of time after he so entered into business, was waived at the argument.
The remaining question is whether or not the jury should have been allowed to assess damages for the period of time subsequent to the trial. The plaintiff was hired for five years from April 25, 1892, and was discharged about the middle of July, 1892. He brought suit on November 10, 1892 and the verdict was rendered on March 14, 1894. The verdict assessed at the sum of $3,180.95 the plaintiff's whole damages for breach of the contract for hiring, and stated that of the amount $1,392.95 was the damage to the time of trial. The defendant concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for an entire breach, so far as such damages can be ascertained, but contends that, as the trial occurred before the expiration of the contract period, it was impossible for the jury to ascertain or assess the damage for the unexpired portion of the contract period subsequent to the time of trial. In support of this contention the defendant cites the cases of Coleburn v. Woodworth, 31 Barb. 381; Fowler v. Armour, 24 Ala. 194; Litchenstien v. Brooks, 75 Tex. 196, 12 S.W. 975; and Gordon v. Brewster, 7 Wis. 355,--in which cases it seems to have been held that, if the suit is begun before the expiration of the contract period, damages can only be allowed to the time of the trial. He asserts that in the case of Howard v. Daly, 61 N.Y. 362, in which full damages were given, the writ was brought after the expiration of the contract period. On the other hand, it has been held in Vermont that, if there has been such a breach as to authorize the plaintiff to treat it as entirely putting an end to the contract, he may recover damages for an entire nonfulfillment, and is not limited to what he has actually sustained at the time of his bringing suit or the time of trial. Remelee v. Hall, 31 Vt. 582. And in Maine, in an action for breach of a contract for hiring, brought before the expiration of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Mitchell
... ... 591, 173 U.S. 1; ... Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., ... 282 U.S. 555, 51 S.Ct. 248, 75 L.Ed. 544; Cutter v. Gillette, ... 163 Mass. 95, 39 N.E. 1010 ... Chalmers ... Potter, of Jackson, for appellee ... Having ... assumed the ... ...
-
Maddaloni v. Western Mass. Bus Lines, Inc.
...course of his employment, 16 and how long he could be expected to keep his job. 17 The matter is summed up in Cutter v. Gillette, 163 Mass. 95, 97, 39 N.E. 1010 (1895), a contract action tried before the expiration of the contract term. The court rejected the argument that it was impossible......
-
Boothby v. Texon, Inc.
...alone apart from fringe benefits, pension benefits and opportunities for further advancement was $138,000.00." In Cutter v. Gillette, 163 Mass. 95, 39 N.E. 1010 (1895), we noted: "The plaintiff's cause of action accrued when he was wrongfully discharged.... In estimating his damages the jur......
-
Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co.
... ... in the exercise of proper diligence might have earned in ... another employment. Cutter v. Gillette, 163 Mass ... 95, 39 N.E. 1010. It seems to be the generally accepted rule ... that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show ... ...