Haag v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 11 September 1911
• Docket Number: 2,949.
• Citation: 72 S.E. 46,9 Ga.App. 650
• Parties: HAAG v. ROGERS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

72 S.E. 46

9 Ga.App. 650

HAAG v. ROGERS.

No. 2,949.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

September 11, 1911

Syllabus by the Court.

"The law will not construe a contract so as to give the debtor the right to destroy it by a simple refusal to comply with it unless the terms of the contract are so clear and unambiguous as to make irresistible the conclusion that no other result could possibly be reached."

Where a contract of employment provides that it shall remain in force so long as is mutually satisfactory, and that the rate of wages shall be so much, but that the employé shall be entitled to so much extra compensation per month, provided he remain in the service until a set date, and not otherwise the proper construction of the agreement is that either party may terminate the contract at will; and if the employé quits before the time set, or by his wrongful conduct makes it reasonable and just for his employer to discharge him prior to that time, he forfeits the extra compensation, but, if the employer himself voluntarily and without cause sooner terminates the contract, the employé is entitled to a ratable part of the extra compensation.

A contract by which an employer is to pay the employé a certain amount as wages in any event, and an additional amount in the event he remains in the employment till the end of the contract, is not unenforceable as to the extra compensation on the ground that it is nudum pactum.

Whether fighting on the show grounds by the plaintiff, who was a working man employed by the proprietor of a circus, was (especially in the absence of all evidence as to the nature and cause of the fight) a reasonable cause for his discharge was a question for solution by the jury, and is not a matter absolutely settled as a matter of law by the express provisions of the contract.

No error of law appears.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Where the defendant sought certiorari directly from the decision of the magistrate without appealing to a jury on writ of error to the judgment of the superior court overruling the certiorari, he must assume the burden of showing that the evidence demanded as a matter of law a finding in his favor.

The attachment, being a part of the pleadings, need not be introduced in evidence on the trial of the attachment case.

Where the defendant in attachment replevied the property levied on, he cannot complain that there was no proof that the property was that of the defendant or in his possession, nor that the description of the property was too indefinite to identify the property and base a judgment.

Error from Superior Court, Berrien County; J. H. Merrill, Judge.

Action by John Rogers against E. Haag. To a judgment of the superior court overruling certiorari to review a judgment of a magistrate for plaintiff, defendant sued out a writ of error. Affirmed.

Hendricks & Christian, for plaintiff in error.

J. P. Knight, for defendant in error.

POWELL J.

In June, 1909, Haag, the proprietor of a circus, as party of the first part, and Rogers, as party of the second part, made the following contract: "The said party of the second part hereby agrees to render services as working man for the season commencing on or about July 20 and to continue for the show season, or so long as mutually agreeable to both parties, under the following conditions: 1st. Second party of the second part agrees to render services to Haag's Mighty Shows, in a painstaking manner, and to be responsible for all property damaged by careless driving or willful carelessness of any kind. 2d. Party of the second part agrees to abide by all rules made by the party of the first part, and for any violation of said rules is liable to a fine of one week's salary, or dismissal, and contract annulled. 3d. Party of the first part agrees to pay to the said party of the second part the sum of $10.00 per month, or if the said party of the second part remain in the employment of the party of the first part until close of season in Dec. 31, 1909, party of second part is to be paid at the rate of $18.00 per month, but under no circumstances, if party of the second part fail to remain until said close of season, shall he be paid over the rate of $10.00 per month. 4th. Party of the second part can in no way obtain settlement in full of the $10.00 per month rate unless party of the first part has been notified in written form, two weeks previous to settlement. 5th. The party of the first part agrees that said party of the second part is to have a plenty to eat, always the best obtainable under circumstances and the place we are in; also that party of the second part is to have the best of treatment if his duties are performed in a painstaking manner. 6th. The management reserves the right to temporarily close the season for cause, during which time no salaries shall be paid. 7th. Be it clearly understood by party of the second part that under no circumstances, during the life of this contract, is party of first part liable for any damages, for any accident that may happen to party of the second part. 8th. Party of the second part furthermore agrees that no compensation other than board, transportation and $1.00 in cash will be given him should he render less than one month service. 9th. $5.00 fine for each drunk or fight on show grounds. Witness whereof hereunto set our hands and seals." On the back of the contract, which was duly signed by both parties, is the following: "Working Man's Contract. Haag's Shows. E. Haag, Proprietor. For each drunk on or around show grounds, $5.00 fine. For each fight on show grounds, $5.00 fine. I agree to pay the above fines. [Signed] John Rogers." On November 2d Rogers had a fight on the show grounds. Haag's manager discharged him, and tendered to him $2.25 in full settlement of the balance due him. It is undisputed that, if it is proper to compute the wages at the rate...