Fulton v. Heffelfinger
| Decision Date | 24 October 1899 |
| Docket Number | 2,847 |
| Citation | 54 N.E. 1079,23 Ind.App. 104 |
| Parties | FULTON v. HEFFELFINGER |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Wells Circuit Court.
Reversed.
J. S Dailey, A. Simmons, F. C. Dailey and U. S. Lesh, for appellant.
A. N Martin and W. H. Eichhorn, for appellee.
The appellee's complaint contained two paragraphs. The first showed an indebtedness of the appellant to the appellee on account for work and labor, for certain articles sold and delivered and cash expended, and for board and lodging furnished for employes of the appellant, all at his special instance and request. In a bill of particulars filed with this paragraph was a charge of $ 252, dated February 27, 1897, for one year's work on a farm. There were also other items of account for boarding furnished, articles sold, and cash paid, all prior to July 1, 1897.
In the second paragraph it was alleged that on the 27th of February, 1897, the appellant hired the appellee to work upon the appellant's farm described, for a period of one year therefrom; that by the terms of the contract the appellee was to devote his time to doing farm work on said farm, to feeding and caring for a large number of cattle, hogs, and horses belonging to the appellant and kept on said farm; that, in consideration of appellee's promise so to devote his labor to appellant's services, the latter promised and agreed to pay the sum of $ 252, to furnish the appellee a dwelling-house upon said farm, together with a garden, yard, and all necessary appurtenances, to give appellee the right to cultivate for his own use three truck patches for raising vegetables, and to furnish fire-wood for housekeeping. It was alleged that the value of the use of the dwelling-house for a year was $ 60, that the value of the truck patches was $ 90 per year, and that the value of the wood privilege was $ 50 per year, all, with $ 252 cash, aggregating $ 452. It was also alleged that the appellant agreed to furnish and pay the appellee for one year's labor as aforesaid, from February 27, 1897, to February 27, 1898; that, pursuant to said agreement, appellee entered into possession of said dwelling-house, and planted his crops and vegetables upon said three patches, and until July 1, 1897, performed all work requested of him by the appellant, farmed for him, cared for and fed his live stock, and faithfully performed said contract; that on July 1, 1897, the appellant forcibly and unlawfully ejected appellee from said dwelling-house, discharged him from his service, refused to permit appellee longer to work for him, refused to furnish wood for appellee, and had taken forcible and unlawful possession of the truck patches so being cultivated by the appellee; that since his discharge appellee had been obliged to find another home for his family, had sought but had not found employment, and had been greatly damaged by the appellant's "breach of said contract;" and that the appellant was indebted to the appellee in the sum of $ 452, the aggregate aforesaid, which was due and wholly unpaid; wherefore, etc.
The overruling of the appellant's motion to require the appellee to separate the several causes of action stated in the complaint, and to docket the same separately as separate causes of action, is assigned as error, and to some extent discussed by counsel for the appellant. Without regard to the question whether, as suggested in argument, the second paragraph is in tort, there could be no reversible error in the action of the court in overruling the motion. File v. Springel, 132 Ind. 312, 31 N.E. 1054; Fitzmaurice v. Puterbaugh, 17 Ind.App. 318, 45 N.E. 524.
To the first paragraph of complaint there was an answer of general denial and an answer of payment. There was an answer of set-off directed to the whole complaint. In a paragraph of answer addressed to the second paragraph of complaint the appellant set forth a special contract of hiring at certain stipulated wages per month, and alleged various violations of its terms, and failures and refusals to perform the duties thereunder on the part of the appellee; that on account of these breaches, the appellant discharged the appellee from the service on the 1st of July, 1897; and that before the commencement of this action (which was commenced on the 14th of July, 1897) the appellant fully paid the appellee all the wages and money due him on the contract mentioned in the second paragraph of complaint, up to and including the 1st of July, 1897. There was a reply in denial. No question is before us relating to the sufficiency of any of the pleadings.
A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the appellee in the sum of $ 185.86. Pending a motion for a new trial, the appellee remitted all of the amount of the verdict in excess of $ 140, for which sum the court, having overruled the motion for a new trial, rendered judgment.
Before filing his answer, the appellant offered to allow judgment to be entered against him in the sum of $ 105, and the question chiefly argued relates to the amount of recovery, and certain instructions of the court affecting that question.
The evidence showed that the appellee commenced...
To continue reading
Request your trial