Hood v. Hampton Plains Exploration Co.
Decision Date | 26 January 1901 |
Docket Number | 695. |
Citation | 106 F. 408 |
Parties | HOOD v. HAMPTON PLAINS EXPLORATION CO., Limited. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Where plaintiff was employed as caretaker for the property of a mining company, a portion of his wages to be retained by the company until it should resume work or sell its property, his action in retaining and applying on such part of his wages a portion of the money collected by him for rents and for certain personal property sold by him, after four years had elapsed and the company had not resumed work nor sold its property, the collections being duly accounted for and reported by him, was not such a breach of trust as justified the company in discharging him and refusing to pay him the wages withheld.
This action was brought by plaintiff to recover from defendant the sum of $2,889.82, alleged to be due him for 1,612 days' services, at $4 per day, as care-taker of defendant's mining property at Pittsburg, Nev., between September 30 1895, and March 2, 1900. The action was originally brought in the state court, and thereafter, upon motion of defendant removed to this court. The answer of the defendant denies that plaintiff rendered any services beyond 1,491 days. For further answer, and by way of affirmative defense, 'defendant alleges that 'On or about the 30th day of September, 1895, defendant employed this plaintiff as care-taker of its property, real and personal. * * * That plaintiff entered upon his duties as care-taker for this defendant on the 1st day of October, 1895, and continued and remained in the employ of defendant up to and including November 4, 1899. * * * That it agreed to pay to said plaintiff for his said services the sum and price of four dollars per day, payable as follows: One-half of said sum, to wit, two dollars per day, payable at the end of each consecutive fourth week of service, and the remaining one-half, to wit, two dollars per day, payable at such a time as this defendant might resume operations of its business or dispose of its property. * * * That from the . . . day of November, 1897, up to and including the 30th day of October, 1899, this plaintiff has received from the sales of merchandise and supplies belonging to this defendant, and from rents of property belonging to defendant, the sum of $605.05, which said sum of money plaintiff has converted to his own use, without the consent of this defendant, and plaintiff is now indebted to this defendant in the full sum of $605.05, no part of which sum has been paid. * * * That at the time of the employment of this plaintiff, to wit, September 30, 1895, it was ever since then, and now is, the owner of, and in the possession of, those certain mines, mining claims, and mining property and appurtenances situate at Pittsburg, Lander county, Nevada. That ever since the employment of plaintiff by this defendant said mines * * * have remained and now are idle, and defendant at no time during the employment of said plaintiff either resumed operation of its business or disposed of its property, '-- and prays judgment against the plaintiff for the sum of $605.05 and costs.
Plaintiff's employment commenced October 1, 1895, upon an oral agreement between himself and Mr. Hunter, agent of the defendant. On January 15, 1896, the plaintiff, in a letter addressed to R H. M. Hill, secretary of defendant, said: To this letter the plaintiff received a reply dated London February 15, 1896, wherein Hill said: 'The arrangement as to your salary is as stated in your letter of the 15th ultimo. ' It is admitted that plaintiff received payments, as per agreement, at the rate of two dollars per day, up to September 25, 1899, and that he has received no payment whatever since that date. On September 30, 1899, the plaintiff, in a letter sent to Mr. Hill, said: On 'October 3, 1899, Hill, in a letter to plaintiff, said: On 'November 4, 1899, the plaintiff wrote to Hill as follows: On 'November 17, 1899, Hill wrote plaintiff, among other things, as follows: On 'December 11, 1899, the plaintiff, in answer to this letter, after repeating the terms of the agreement, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caine v. Hagenbarth
... ... Tifton, 75 Am.Dec. 498; Ubsdel v. Cunningham, ... 22 Mo. 124; Hood v. Hampton Plains, etc., 106 F ... 408.) When an appellate court is ... ...
-
Watchorn v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation
...Campbell's Ex'r (Ky.) 4 S. W. 301, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 367; Taylor v. Simi Const. Co., 23 Cal. App. 308, 137 P. 1095; Hood v. Hampton Plains Exploration Co., Ltd. (C. C.) 106 F. 408; Gliddon v. McKinstry, 25 Ala. 246; Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423, 205 P. 995; Noland v. Bull, 24 Or. 479, 33 P. ......
-
Branch v. Lambert
... ... the sale. Noland v. Bull, 24 Or. 479, 33 P. 983; ... Hood v. Hampton Plains Exploration Co. (C. C.) 106 ... F. 408; Crooker ... ...
-
Pegg v. Olson
...59 Miss. 317, 42 Am. Rep. 365; Wright v. Hull, 83 Ohio St. 385, 94 N.E. 813; Noland v. Bull, 24 Ore. 479, 33 P. 983; Hood v. Hampton Plains Exp. Co., 106 F. 408; Brown v. Cruse, 90 Kan. 306; 133 P. Greenstreet v. Cheatum, 99 Kan. 290, 161 P. 596; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554. Applying ......