Jensen v. Duvall

• Citation: 185 N.W. 584,192 Iowa 960
• Decision Date: 15 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 34135.,34135.
• Parties: JENSEN v. DUVALL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

192 Iowa 960

185 N.W. 584

JENSEN

v.DUVALL.

No. 34135.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Audubon County; Earl Peters, Judge.

Action to recover damages for wrongful discharge, on December 9, 1919, of plaintiff, who had engaged to work for defendant as a farm laborer for one year beginning March 1, 1919. There was a trial to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $50. Judgment was entered on the verdict. Facts appear in the opinion. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.Mantz & White, of Audubon, for appellant.

Sayles & Taylor, of Guthrie Center, for appellee.

ARTHUR J.

On March 1, 1919, appellant began work for appellee under an oral agreement for one year from March 1, 1919, at a salary of $75 per month, and in addition thereto appellant was to have the use of a house for himself and family on appellee's premises, and the use of milch cow. Appellee paid appellant for his services up to December 1, 1919, at the agreed compensation. On December 9th, appellee discharged appellant from his employ. Appellee did not pay appellant for the nine days that appellant worked in December, nor for any amount claimed for breach of contract.

Plaintiff begun this action to recover damages for wrongful discharge from appellee's employ, consisting of loss of wages from December 1, 1919, to March 1, 1920, at $75 per month, $225; loss of use of house for the same period, $50; loss of use of cow for same period, $25; making a total demand for damages of $300.

Appellant claimed that he sought diligently to obtain other employment after he was discharged, and was able to earn only $18, and credits defendant in that amount.

Appellee's defense was that he was justified in discharging appellant because of the failure of appellant to render reasonably good service.

The major issue in the trial was whether or not appellee had the right to or was justified in discharging appellant.

Testimony was introduced by appellant for the purpose of showing that he performed his work well and faithfully, and was discharged without sufficient cause. There was testimony introduced by appellee for the purpose of showing that appellant had failed to render reasonably good service and that appellee was justified in discharging appellant from his employ. Appellee did not attempt to prove that appellant could obtain work other than that stated by appellant in his testimony.

Errors relied upon for reversal are:

(1) The damages awarded, $50, by the jury, under the undisputed evidence, are inadequate.

(2) In the assessment of damages the jury disregarded the instruction of the court, and especially instruction No. 7.

(3) The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence.

(4) The court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict.

(5) The court should have raised the verdict of the jury to what the undisputed evidence shows the plaintiff was entitled to under the instructions of the court, and given the defendant the option of accepting it or submitting to a new trial.

The jury was instructed that it was established by the evidence that the plaintiff did not receive any pay for his work for defendant from December 1, to December 9, 1919, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover for his services for that period at the rate of $75 per month, amounting to the sum of $22.50, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. from March 1, 1920, which amounted at the time of the trial to $23.25.

The court further instructed the jury that if it found that the defendant had sufficient cause for discharging the plaintiff, under the rules given, their verdict should be for plaintiff only for the said amount of $23.25.

In instruction No. 7 the jury was instructed that if the defendant failed to show that he had sufficient grounds for discharging the plaintiff, under the rules given in the former instructions, then the defendant was not justified in discharging the plaintiff, and, in such event, if the plaintiff showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was damaged by reason of such discharge, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover from the defendant the amount of wages under the contract to March 1, 1920, that were not paid to the plaintiff, which amounted to $225, and the reasonable rental value of the house that was furnished from December 10, 1919, to March 1, 1920, and the reasonable value of the use of the cow during said time, less such amount as the evidence showed the plaintiff actually earned in other employment from December 9, 1919, to March 1, 1920.

The evidence is quite voluminous and it is unnecessary to set it out. It may safely be said, and it is sufficient to say, that there is sharp conflict in the testimony on the issue of whether or not appellee was justified in discharging appellant. On this main issue, a hard battle was fought. Appellee strongly asserts in his testimony that appellant was unfaithful and derelict in his duty, and that he was amply justified in discharging him. Appellant contends, by his testimony, that he did not fail in his duty and loyalty to appellee, and that his discharge was wrongful and without justification. After reading the...