Hussey v. Holloway

• Decision Date: 28 February 1914
• Citation: 104 N.E. 471,217 Mass. 100
• Parties: HUSSEY v. HOLLOWAY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

217 Mass. 100

104 N.E. 471

HUSSEY v. HOLLOWAY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 28, 1914

COUNSEL

William Reed Bigelow and Louis L. Green, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Pitt F Drew, of Boston, for defendants.

OPINION

DE COURCY, J.

The defendants agreed to employ the plaintiff for the spring season of 1910 as trimmer in their millinery department. In the superior court they admitted that there had been a breach of this contract on their part, and the trial proceeded on the issue of damages. The case is here on exceptions to the refusal of the judge to give several rulings requested by the defendants, and to the admission of certain testimony.

It appeared in evidence that the season began about February 14 1910. On February 13th the defendants wrote to the plaintiff notifying her that they would not re-engage her. To this she replied that she would treat the letter as a breach of their contract, and would hold them responsible in damages. On February 19th they wrote to her:

'After due consideration of yours of the 16th inst., we beg to advise you we shall expect you to report at the store Monday a. m., Feb. 21st. We have, however, a head trimmer and your work will be under the supervision of this head trimmer and Mrs. Cooksey.'

The plaintiff testified that she regarded this letter as an afterthought and as not written in good faith; that the defendants never kept more than one trimmer, and that she was wanted for the inferior and lower salaried position of a hat maker; and that she believed they would let her go again in a few days. One of the defendants admitted that they needed but one trimmer, and intimated that the plaintiff's work would be that of a maker.

There was also evidence to warrant the finding of the following facts: After her letter of February 24th to the defendants, the plaintiff applied to the various wholesale houses and to some of the retailers for employment. On March 14th she was offered a position as copyist at $15 a week, but declined it, as she had never worked for less than $18, and sometimes received $20, and was hoping to get employment at her regular pay. On that same day she was employed at Kornfeld's, and worked there from Tuesday until Saturday night at $3 a day. After that no position was obtainable in Boston, as it was too late in the season; and she was unable to accept those offered out of town on account of the condition of her invalid mother.

The presiding judge fully and correctly instructed the jury on the general rule of damages, applicable in such cases. There were two portions of the evidence that called for more specific instructions, namely, the defendant's letter of February 9th, and the testimony relating to the plaintiff's refusal to accept certain offers of employment. As to the letter, the judge expressly said to the jury: 'There is no question that if she had been offered definitely her old employment for the term and for the wages for which she was engaged, that her absolute refusal to accept that should be regarded as a bar for any further claim for damages beyound the date when that refusal was sent in.' And he properly left it to the jury to say as a matter of fact whether the letter constituted such an offer. If the defendants really had intended to restore to the plaintiff her old position, they easily could have said so. The letter, however, did not state what the new work was to be, nor the wages, nor the term of employment; and the jury well might regard such an offer terminable at will, as one not equivalent to the plaintiff's former contract, which was for a definite period and in a superior position. The plaintiff was not obliged to accept a modification of the original agreement. De Loraz v. McDowell, 68 Hun, 172, 22 N.Y.S. 606, affirmed in 142 N.Y. 664, 37 N.E. 570; Chisholm v. Bankers' Life Assur. Co., 112 Mich. 50, 70 N.W. 415; People's Co-op. Ass'n v. Lloyd, 77 Ala. 387; Trawick v. Peoria & Ft. C. St. Ry. Co., 68 Ill.App. 156.

With...