Hennessy v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1896
• Citation: 67 N.W. 635,65 Minn. 13
• Parties: HENNESSY v ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

65 Minn. 13

67 N.W. 635

HENNESSYvST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 4, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Evidence considered, and held, that it justifies the finding and conclusion of the trial court to the effect that there was never any accord and satisfaction between the parties hereto as to the claim of the defendant against the plaintiff for damages to its property, the amount of which it assumed to deduct from his pay.

Appeal from municipal court of St. Paul; Twohy, Judge.

Action by John Hennessy against the St. Paul City Railway Company. Judgment ordered for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Munn, Boyeson & Thygeson, for appellant.

R. A. Walsh, for respondent.

START, C. J.

This is an action to recover a balance of $23.75 which the plaintiff claims is due to him from the defendant for services rendered between January 1 and May 1, 1893. The defense is payment. The trial court found the following facts: “The plaintiff was employed by the defendant in the operation of its lines of railway in the said city of St. Paul during part of the year 1892, all of the year 1893, and part of the year 1894, at an agreed price per day. That during said time certain of the machinery and appliances of the defendant, used by the plaintiff, were damaged, but without fault upon his part. That on account of the injury to said property the defendant withheld of the plaintiff's wages the following sums, viz.: In January, 1893, $2.50; in May, 1893, $5; in April, 1893, $5; in March, 1893, $10; in January, 1894, $1.25,-but without consulting the plaintiff, or obtaining his consent thereto. That plaintiff signed, with others, a pay roll of the defendant, during each of said months, of which the following is a copy: ‘We, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge to have received of the Twin City Rapid-Transit Co. the amount set opposite our names, in full of all wages due for half month ending January 31, 1893; and we do severally assent to all deductions herein made from our checks by said company for damage to its property.’ That the plaintiff did not read or know the contents of said receipt, nor was the same called to his attention by any of the officers or agents of said company, when he signed it. That the plaintiff did not demand said sums so withheld during the time he was employed by defendant, being in fear of being discharged if he did so.” As a conclusion of law, the court found that the...