Higgins v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 05 January 1903 |
| Citation | 65 N.E. 805,182 Mass. 364 |
| Parties | HIGGINS v. SHEPARD et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robt. E Levi, for plaintiff.
John J Higgins, for defendants.
This is an action to recover a balance of salary claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that she was hired by the defendants to serve as buyer in one of the departments of their dry-goods business for the term of one year beginning on October 4, 1897, at a salary of $800 per year, payable in monthly installments. There was no dispute that she was discharged on July 1, 1898, and the question controvered before the jury was whether the contract was absolute for one year, or whether it was a contract that would end at any time when either of the parties chose to terminate it. The evidence tended to show that the defendants expressed dissatisfaction with one of her transactions, which occurred about June 15 or June 20, 1898. She testified that Mr. Cole one of the defendants, said there 'was carelessness on her part, and she replied she did not think so; * * * after some talk he said he wished her to resign her position; that she told him she did not see any reason why she should, that she was hired up to the 1st of October, 1898, and she did not see any reason why she should resign; and he said that he did not understand that she was hired excepting month by month; and she replied she understood, and the way her salary was paid any one would understand, it that way, and that she should not resign; that an envelope came from the office that evening with a letter and her money for the month of June; that the envelope contained her salary for June, and informed her that her services would be no longer required after the 1st of July; that she sent the money back, and wrote a letter to Mr. Shepard and told him how her contract was; * * * that she would not resign, and should not accept the money.' Precisely when this conversation with Mr. Cole was does not appear, but apparently it was soon after the 20th of June. The plaintiff testified, against the objection of the defendants, that on June 27th 'Mr. Cole came to her and said he wanted to advise her as a friend to go away quietly from the store the 1st of July, and not make any trouble about it, and he said to her, 'We are willing to make a compromise, and pay you for the month of July'; that she told him if he did not owe her for the month of July she did not wish him to pay her, and if he owed her for the month of July he owed her for the three months.' The court ruled that this evidence was competent as a part of a conversation between the parties. 'The defendants then requested the court to rule, limiting the evidence simply to the matter and talk between the parties, and not for the purpose to prove the liability of the defendants, and to show what the contract was; but the court ruled that if the evidence was competent for any purpose it ought to be admitted.' The defendants excepted.
Before this conversation of June 27th a controversy...
To continue reading
Request your trial