Dunton v. Howell
| Decision Date | 23 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 8654.,8654. |
| Citation | 60 Ind.App. 183,109 N.E. 418 |
| Parties | DUNTON v. HOWELL. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Huntington County; S. E. Cook, Judge.
Action by Edsell Howell against Sarah Dunton. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Watkins & Butler, of Huntington, for appellant. George M. Eberhart and Bowers & Feightner, all of Huntington, for appellee.
Appellee brought an action against appellant to recover a balance, which he alleged to be due him for work and labor performed for appellant as a farm hand. Judgment was rendered in favor of appellee upon a verdict of a jury in the sum of $420. From this judgment, an appeal has been prosecuted by appellant.
Errors assigned are: (1) Overruling appellant's motion for a new trial; (2) overruling appellant's motion for judgment on answers to interrogatries; (3) overruling appellant's demurrer to appellee's second paragraph of reply as addressed to appellant's fourth paragraph of answer.
Briefly, appellee's complaint alleges that on the 1st of March of each of the following years, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912, appellant employed appellee as a farm hand at the rate of $20 per month. For the first three years, he agreed to and did work eight months, and for the last year he agreed to and did work five months. Appellant paid appellee the sum of $160, leaving a balance due him in the sum of $450.
Appellant answered the complaint in four paragraphs. To the fourth, which is an answer of accord and satisfaction, appellee has addressed an affirmative paragraph of reply. The substance of the fourth paragraph of answer is that, after appellee had performed all of the labor for which he was to receive compensation, there was a mutual settlement entered into between appellant and appellee, by the terms of which appellee accepted appellant's promissory note, calling for the sum of $125 in full settlement of all that was due him. The principal allegations of the reply are that appellee was illiterate at the time of the alleged settlement, being unable to read or write, and did not know that the note in question was executed in full settlement; that he was under the impression that the paper he received was a check, upon which he could obtain the money that was due him; and that he was misled and defrauded by appellant.
The causes for a new trial as set forth in appellant's brief are: (1) The verdict is contrary to the evidence; (2) the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence; (3) the verdict is contrary to law; (4) error of the court in giving of its own motion instructions Nos. 7 and 8; (5) the damages are too large.
The evidence discloses that appellee was illiterate, being unable to read or write, except, however, he could write his name. He was subject to epileptic fits, and had been for many years. He worked for appellant upon her farm for four different seasons. It is appellant's contention, as disclosed by the evidence, that she paid appellee various amounts of money from time to time, which, together with the note she executed for $125 and delivered to appellee, fully covered all she owed for his labor, and that the note was accepted by him in full settlement of all claims and demands against her. On the other hand, it is appellee's contention, as disclosed by the evidence, that there was due him the sum of $450, at the time he ceased to labor for appellant, and on account of his illiterate condition he did not understand the nature and effect of the paper delivered to him, but supposed he was receiving a check, upon which he could draw the money due him from appellant.
[1] All of these questions, being disputed questions of fact, were submitted to the jury, and the verdict is final in this particular. To inquire into the same would involve the weighing of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial