Jenks v. Knotts Mexican Silver Mining Co.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1882 |
| Citation | 12 N.W. 588,58 Iowa 549 |
| Parties | JENKS v. THE KNOTT'S MEXICAN SILVER MINING COMPANY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clarke District Court.
ACTION at law to recover for labor and services rendered by plaintiff for defendant in prosecuting its mining operations in Mexico. There were a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. All the facts of the case necessary for a proper understanding of the points decided, are found in the opinion.
AFFIRMED.
J. C Mitchell and C. C. McIntire, for appellant.
Stuart Brothers, for appellee.
I.
The plaintiff seeks to recover for sixty-one days' work, and declares therefor in two counts of his petition. In the first count he claims to recover the reasonable value of his labor which he alleges to be $ 5 per day. In the second count he avers that the work was done under a contract providing for compensation at the rate of $ 5 a day, and asks to recover accordingly.
The answer admits that plaintiff performed for defendant sixty-one days' work at its mines in Mexico, and is entitled to recover reasonable compensation therefor, but denies the contract set up in the second count, and alleges that the reasonable value of the labor is seventy-five cents per day. It avers certain payments, and shows that $ 2.75 and no more, are due plaintiff, and a tender of that sum and costs is made.
The jury rendered a general verdict in the sum of $ 262, and specially found that plaintiff worked for defendant in Mexico sixty-one days, and that the reasonable value of the labor is $ 5 per day. It appears, therefore, that plaintiff is entitled to recover under the special findings, and the admissions of the answer upon the first count of the petition, and we will presume the general verdict was rendered thereon.
II. The court instructed the jury that the reasonable value of plaintiff's labor "may be shown by the usual and customary price paid for the same class or kind of labor," at the time and place, when and where, plaintiff rendered the service for which the action is brought. This instruction is not complained of as presenting an incorrect rule, but counsel for defendant insist that certain instructions, asked in its behalf upon the same branch of the case, ought to have been given as applicable to the peculiar facts of the case.
There was evidence tending to prove that certain officers of defendant and others, employed at the mines, were paid under special contracts, five dollars per day for their labor. One of the instructions requested on behalf of defendant, is to the effect that proof of such contracts would not establish the reasonable value of plaintiff's labor. The instruction, we think, was properly refused. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the "usual and customary price for the same class and kind of labor" performed at the mines. This is the rule of the instruction given, and is not doubted by defendant. Now, if so many other workmen engaged in the same kind of labor done by the plaintiff, were paid, under contract, five dollars per day, that it may be said the usual and customary compensation was that price, evidence of such fact would establish the value of plaintiff's services. The usual and customary price of the labor can only be shown by evidence of the wages actually paid, either under express or implied contracts. The defendant, by such payments, fixed the customary price which the law regards as the reasonable value of the labor. The instruction asked, it will be seen, is in conflict with these views.
III. Counsel for defendant think that the instruction given, which is above quoted, is inexplicit, in that it holds the reasonable value of plaintiff's labor may be shown by the usual and customary...
To continue reading
Request your trial