Davis v. Walter

• Decision Date: 21 December 1886
• Citation: 30 N.W. 804,70 Iowa 465
• Parties: DAVIS v. WALTER AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 465

30 N.W. 804

DAVIS

v.WALTER AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 21, 1886.

Appeal from Polk circuit court.

Action to recover for the breach of a contract, whereby defendants became bound to employ plaintiff for one year, and pay wages and expenses provided for by the agreement. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.J. M. & G. E. McCaughan, for appellants.

Bryan & Bryan, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The petition alleges that plaintiff and defendants entered into a verbal agreement of employment for one year, plaintiff agreeing to serve defendants, and defendants agreeing to give plaintiff employment for that time, paying him $45 per month, and expenses, as stipulated in the contract and set out in the petition, and to advance about one month after the commencement of the employment $125 on the year's salary. The petition shows that plaintiff performed labor under this contract for more than six months, and that defendants then refused to perform their contract, and, without cause, discharged him. The answer denies the allegation of the petition.

2. The circuit court, against defendants' objection, permitted plaintiff to introduce evidence of a conversation had with one of the parties through the telephone. No objection is made which raises the question whether a conversation held in that manner is competent, the same as conversations where the parties are together, or conversations without the aid of the telephone. It need not, therefore, be considered. But the objection urged by defendants is based solely upon the ground that it was not shown that the person alleged to be one of the defendants who had the conversation was in fact one of them. The testimony shows that “Ed.” Walters held the conversation with the witness. He is several times designated by that name as one of the defendants in the testimony of the other defendant. It sufficiently appears by this evidence that the conversation was held with one of the defendants. The objection may be disposed of on another ground. It is not shown that an objection now presented was urged in the court below.

3. It is insisted by defendants' counsel that the evidence does not support the verdict, and that the verdict exceeds the amount of damages established by the evidence. All that need be said upon this point is that the evidence upon the issue was conflicting, and, upon the amount of damages, was not entirely clear. But it cannot be said that, upon either point, it was so wanting or uncertain as to require us, under the rules prevailing upon questions of this character, to reverse the judgment.

4. The court, in presenting the issues to the jury, did not state or refer to the...