Eveland v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 25 November 1921
• Citation: 132 N.E. 719,240 Mass. 99
• Parties: EVELAND v. LAWSON et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

240 Mass. 99

132 N.E. 719

EVELAND

v.LAWSON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 25, 1921.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. T. Quinn, Judge.

Action by Arthur J. Eveland against Thomas W. Lawson and another for services as mining engineer in investigating mining property. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

The court over defendants' objection admitted copies of two letters from plaintiff to defendant. This first of such letters (Exhibit 82) was as follows:

April 3, 1917.

Mr. Thomas W. Lawson, Boston, Mass.-Dear Sir: It is now six weeks since I returned to Boston to place before you the results of my work of the last year, carried on for you in South America, and to ascertain, and straighten out if possible, the cause of the difficulties in connection with it.

It is three weeks since I had the first and only conference with you in regard to this matter, in which you stated to me that from the information I was able to furnish you, you intended to carry on the work, that I was to consider myself still in your employ, and that we would resume the discussion, taking up the best manner in which to proceed, on the following day.

Since that time, I have not heard from you, nor have I been able to communicate with you in any way, either through your secretary or your office. I have sent you under dates of Feb. 27th, and of Mar. 21st, statements of the balance due me for the work to date, but further than the partial payment of $1,500 on Mar. 16th, my request for payment of this balance has been ignored.

In find myself unable to continue on this basis. I went through some unpleasant months in South America, owing to the fact that funds were not furnished me when needed, and according to the agreement you made with me before leaving, and in addition, the whole success of the work was blocked by delay and inattention on the part of your office or yourself. If you are still inclined to continue with the business of acquiring mining property in South America, through my services, it surely is not asking you too much to inform me of that fact, and to send me a check for $2,967.85, the balance due me for my work last year. I can wait your convenience for the arrangement to proceed, providec accounts are squared up to date, and I am under a more definite status than seems to exist at present.

Otherwise, if you have lost interest in the matter, I request a notification to that effect, and will consider that my services have terminated at the end of March, this year, expecting a prompt remittance of the $2,967.85, so that I may take my ideas to whatever other market may be available.

‘Very truly yours,

A. J. Eveland.'R. G. Dodge and H. K. Rising, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Wilford D. Gray, of Boston, for defendants.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of contract brought by a mining engineer to recover a balance alleged to be due for services in investigating for the defendant certain mining properties in South America. The defendant testified that he authorized no services except an original examination of the Gardner-White claim, so called, and that he at no time ratified the performance of additional services for him by the plaintiff. The issue at the trial was whether the defendant owed the plaintiff for services and expenses in connection with the investigation of properties other than the Gardner-White claim.

The exceptions recite that--

‘There was evidence from which the jury could have found either way on the issues of original employment for services other than the Gardner-White claim or subsequent ratification.’

The questions raised by the bill of exceptions are whether the court erred in admitting in evidence two letters, Exhibits 82 and...