Jones v. Manhattan Horse Manure Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1918
• Citation: 91 N.J.Law 406,103 A. 984
• Parties: JONES v. MANHATTAN HORSE MANURE CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

103 A. 984

91 N.J.Law 406

JONES

v. MANHATTAN HORSE MANURE CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 6, 1918.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from District Court of Jersey City.

Action by John Jones against the Manhattan Horse Manure Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued February term, 1918, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.

Weller & Lichtenstein, of Hoboken, for appellant. Robert N. Shoemaker, of Newark, for appellee.

TRENCHARD, J. This action was brought by Jones to recover damages for the breach of the following written contract of hiring: "April 18th, 1917.

"It is mutually agreed by and between John Jones, of 205 New Jersey Railroad avenue, Newark, N. J., and the Manhattan Horse Manure Company of New Jersey, that John Jones will give his services to the building up of the business, operation of same, looking after the men and horses, superintending the business for the best interest of the company, and obeying all lawful directions of the officers of the company. John Jones proposes to reside in Newark, N. J., so as to devote the necessary time to the running of the business. For the performance of the above services by John Jones the Manhattan Horse Manure Company agrees to pay said John Jones the sum of fifteen hundred dollars per year, payable semimonthly. It is further understood and agreed that John Jones is also to receive the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars at Christmas, 1917, and one hundred and twenty-five dollars at Easter, 1918, providing he gets the business well organized and running, as we expect he will. Manhattan Horse Manure Co., by James C. Milligan, Prest. John Jones."

At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff served the defendant until August 4, 1917 when he was discharged, as he contends, without legal cause.

As the case is presented on this appeal, the only question is whether the contract in evidence, by legal construction, constituted a contract of yearly hiring, or a contract of hiring at will merely.

The trial judge held it to be a contract of hiring for one year, and in that construction we concur. As will be observed, there is no express limitation of the term of service, though the plaintiff was to be paid $1,500 per year, payable semimonthly. But a stipulation in a written contract for a specified amount of salary per year, payable semimonthly, is not inconsistent with a yearly hiring, and the contract will be deemed to be a hiring for a year when, from a...