Henson v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 31 July 1862
• Citation: 32 Mo. 408
• Parties: GEORGE HENSON, Defendant in Error, v. ALEXANDER HAMPTON, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

32 Mo. 408

GEORGE HENSON, Defendant in Error,

v.ALEXANDER HAMPTON, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1862.

Error to Camden Circuit Court.

Smith, for plaintiff in error.

I. The instruction given to the jury by the court below, at the instance of the plaintiff, is manifestly erroneous. A party cannot abandon at will and pleasure any contract or agreement entered into for rowing or navigating any boat or vessel on the navigable waters in this State, but must specifically perform the same, according to the intent and meaning of such contract or agreement. (R. C. 1855, vol. 1, p. 299, § 1.) The plaintiff's contract with defendant was for a particular service, which the plaintiff failed to perform without being hindered and prevented by the defendant; and the rule of law is, in contracts for services, the performance of the entire term of service is a condition precedent to the right of recovery, unless the contract is abandoned for good cause. (Posey v. Garth, 7 Mo. 94; Schnerr v. Lemp, 19 Mo. 40.) This principle of law particularly applies to boatmen; otherwise, boats and vessels would constantly be deserted and abandoned by their crews, and thereby subjected to delay and vexatious litigation.

II. The instruction asked by the defendant very properly and correctly embodied the law of the case, for the reasons above set forth; and for the further reason that where there is a special contract to do work, and there is a failure to perform it according to its terms, there can be no recovery, unless prevented from doing so by the act of God or the other party. (Helm v. Wilson, 4 Mo. 41.)

DRYDEN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Henson sued Hampton before a justice of the peace to recover the value of fourteen days' work and labor performed by the former for the latter, on board of a flatboat, during a certain voyage on the Osage river. Henson recovered a judgment before the justice, from which Hampton appealed to the Circuit Court, where a new trial was had, which resulted as below. On the trial in the Circuit Court, the evidence tended to show that the work and labor for which the recovery was sought, although done, was performed under a special agreement between the parties, by which Henson was to serve Hampton for the entire voyage, at the price of one dollar per day; but that, before the voyage was completed, Henson, without the consent and against the will of Hampton, quit and abandoned the service without any fault of...