Drennen v. Satterfield

• Decision Date: 29 October 1898
• Parties: DRENNEN ET AL. v. SATTERFIELD.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

24 So. 723

119 Ala. 84

DRENNEN ET AL. v. SATTERFIELD.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 29, 1898

Appeal from city court of Birmingham.

Action by Jasper Satterfield against William Drennen and others to recover for services under contract. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiff introduced in evidence, against the objection and exception of the defendants, two instruments in writing which showed the employment of the plaintiff by the defendants; and the plaintiff testified that these two instruments were written out by himself, and were signed, the one by Drennen & Co., and the other by himself, and delivered to the respective parties at the time of the making of the contract. The defendants, by their testimony, admitted the execution of these two instruments, and testified that they were executed after the plaintiff went to work for the defendants. Thereupon the defendants offered to prove by members of the firm who were introduced as witnesses that at the time of the employment of the plaintiff by the defendants there was, in addition to what was expressed in writing, an agreement in writing that the plaintiff could terminate the contract of employment at any time he saw fit, and that the defendants had the right to discharge the plaintiff at any time they considered it proper to do so. The plaintiff objected to the introduction of this testimony, and separately objected to each of the questions calling for such testimony. The court sustained the separate objections, and to each of these rulings the defendants separately excepted. The testimony on the part of the witnesses introduced by the defendants was to the effect that the plaintiff, about three weeks after his employment, was very attentive in the discharge of his duties, and very efficient, but that after that time he became negligent of the duties of his employment; that there were people coming into the store to see the plaintiff on private business at all times; and that by reason of the plaintiff's neglect of his business, and the inattention to the duties of his employment, the defendants discharged him. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, as a part of the oral charge, instructed the jury as follows: "The two paper writings introduced in evidence by the plaintiff are to be construed together and as a contract to employ plaintiff for the months named at the stipulated wages on the part of the defendant, and is a contract for the plaintiff to serve the defendant for the months named at the stipulated wages." To this part of the oral charge the defendants separately excepted. The defendants requested the court to give to the jury the following written charge, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the same as asked: (15) "If the jury believe from the...