Darst v. Mathieson Alkali Works

• Decision Date: 31 October 1896
• Parties: DARST v. MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

81 F. 284

DARST v. MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Virginia.

October 31, 1896

Daniel Trigg, for plaintiff.

White &amp Penn, for defendant.

PAUL District Judge (charging jury).

This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant company to recover damages resulting from wrongful discharge of the plaintiff from the service of the defendant company. The declaration is as follows 'E. A. Darst, plaintiff in this cause, who is a citizen of the state of Ohio, complains of the Mathieson Alkali Works, a corporation under the laws of, and a citizen of, the state of Virginia, defendant, being summoned of a plea of trespass on the case, for that heretofore, to wit, on the 24th day of July, 1895, at Saltville, in the state of Virginia, the said defendant made and entered into an agreement and contract with the plaintiff, by which it agreed from and after the 17th day of July, 1895, and thenceforward for the period of three years, to pay to the plaintiff the sum of thirty-one hundred dollars annually, in equal monthly payments, and did provide in the said agreement that the first payment to be made in August, to wit, in August, 1895 was to be for the last fifteen days only of July, 1895; and in consideration of the said agreement and undertaking on the part of the defendant, the said plaintiff did agree to give his entire time and attention and his best services to the defendant, in the supervision and direction of the boring and operation of its brine wells, and the general management of its brine supply, subject to the direction and approval of the defendant; and that the plaintiff's efforts should always be employed for the best interests of the company; and that any failure on his part to carry out the intent of the said agreement should constitute a breach of the same. And in order that the plaintiff might better do this, viz. better do and perform the said agreement on his part, the plaintiff agreed that he would bring his family to live in Saltville, as soon as the said defendant could furnish him quarters. And, as a condition of said agreement, it was provided that the outfit then owned by the plaintiff, and used by him for boring wells on the defendant's property, should be purchased within one month from the date of said agreement by the defendant, at a price to be mutually agreed, and that pending said settlement the said agreement should be deemed to be in effect in the same way as if no conditions were named. And the plaintiff avers that he on his part was and has been at all times ready and willing to give, and up to the time of the committing of the breach of the said named contract and agreement, as hereinafter set forth and complained of, on behalf of the defendant, did, pursuant to said agreement, give, his entire time and attention and his best services to the said defendant, in the supervision and direction of the boring and operation of its brine wells and the general management of its brine supply, subject to the direction and approval of the defendant, and did always employ his efforts for the best interests of the defendant, and did on his part carry out the intent of the said agreement, and did bring his family to live at Saltville as soon as the said defendant furnished him quarters, and did in all things do, keep, and perform the said agreement on his part. But, the plaintiff avers, the said defendant did not keep and perform the said agreement on its part, but did break and refuse to perform the same, although often requested so to do, and on the -- day of August, 1896, willfully, and without any just or reasonable cause or excuse, dismiss the plaintiff from its service, and did refuse to allow him to continue longer in its employment, or to work or operate further under its said contract and agreement, or to fulfill the same on its part; whereby, and by reason of which said action of the said defendant, the said plaintiff hath been deprived of his employment, and hath been injured, and hath sustained damage to the amount of $8,000. And therefore the plaintiff brings his suit, ' etc.

The action grows out of the following contract for hiring and service:

'This agreement, dated this 24th day of July, A.D. 1895, at Saltville, Va., between the Mathieson Alkali Works, hereafter called the company, of the first part, and E. A. Darst, of the second part, witnesseth: (1) That the company, from and after 17th day of July, 1895, and thenceforward, for the period of three years, will pay E. A. Darst the sum of thirty-one hundred dollars annually in equal monthly payments; the first payment, however, to be made in August, for the last fifteen days only of July. (2) E. A. Darst will give his entire time and attention and his best services to the company, in the supervision and direction of the boring and operation of its brine wells, and the general management of its brine supply, subject to the direction and approval of the company. His efforts shall always be employed for the best interests of the company, and any failure on his part to carry out the intent of this agreement shall constitute a breach of the same. In order that he may the better do this, he will bring his family to live at Saltville, as soon as the company can furnish him quarters. It is a condition of this agreement that the outfit now owned by E. A. Darst, and used by him for boring wells on the company's property, shall be purchased within one month by the company, at a price to be mutually agreed. Pending such settlement, however, this contract shall be deemed to be in effect in the same way as if no condition were named. In testimony whereof, the parties hereto have set their signatures, the day and year first above mentioned, the Mathieson Alkali Works signing by its assistant treasurer, John Russell Gladding.

'(Signed). . . Mathieson Alkali Works,

'By John Russell Gladding, Asst. Treas.

'(Signed). . . E. A. Darst.

'Witness as to both signatures:

'(Signed) Chas. M. Perry.'

All of the evidence for the plaintiff and for the defendant being given to the jury, counsel for the plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury as follows:

'The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the plaintiff, E. A. Darst, was employed by the defendant, the Mathieson Alkali Works, under a contract for the term of three years, at a salary of $3,100 per year, payable monthly; and if they further believe that the plaintiff did keep and perform the stipulations of said contract on his part, and that he was wrongfully, and without sufficient cause, discharged from the service of said defendant on the 4th day of August, 1896, and that he was paid his salary up to the date of his said discharge,-- they shall find for the plaintiff. And the jury is further instructed that the plaintiff's damages is prima facie the full amount called for by the contract which remains unpaid, subject to such reduction as the jury may believe from the evidence that the defendant is entitled to by reason of any probability of the plaintiff obtaining other employment in the same line called for by the contract, if they have proof upon which to estimate such probability, which is incumbent upon the defendant to prove. If the jury cannot, from the proof, ascertain so as to estimate such probability, they may then render a verdict for the full amount of the unpaid balance called for by the contract. But the measure of damages is a question for the jury, under all the circumstances of the case.'

Counsel for the defendant object to this instruction, on the ground that it does not correctly state the law as to the measure of recovery, where, as in this case, the action to recover damages for a wrongful discharge from service is brought before the expiration of the term of hiring.

The defendant requests the court to...