Knudsen v. Green
| Decision Date | 30 July 1934 |
| Citation | 156 So. 240,116 Fla. 47 |
| Parties | KNUDSEN v. GREEN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.
Action by Waldemar Knudsen against W. H. G. Green. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Leland Hyzer, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Shutts & Bowen, Crate D. Bowen, and L. S. Bonsteel, all of Miami for defendant in error.
In this case it was alleged in the declaration filed by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff in the court below, that the defendant in error, defendant in the court below, agreed orally that defendant would employ the plaintiff and the plaintiff would enter into the service of defendant in the capacity as captain and master of the house boat and other boats of the defendant; that the duration of said employment was not specified; that the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff for such employment at the rate of $300 per month; that prior to and at the time of said agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff was employed by the Standard Oil Company as a mate on one of its vessels, and by reason of such employment plaintiff was then receiving a definite annual salary and other specific benefits in the form of retirement pay and bonuses; that at the time of entering into the contract the plaintiff advised the defendant of his existing employment with the Standard Oil Company and of the salary and benefits he was receiving therefrom, and was assured by the defendant that he would have no regret if he gave up such employment with the Standard Oil Company and the salary and benefits accruing therefrom and enter into the service of the defendant; that relying upon such assurance of the defendant, the plaintiff resigned his position with the Standard Oil Company in order to enter into the service of the defendant; that plaintiff, at the direction of the defendant, proceeded to Miami on or about the middle of the month of October, 1930, and remained in and about the city of Miami from the last-mentioned date until April, 1931, and was at all times ready, able, and willing to proceed with said employment, but that said defendant without good cause and without fault on the part of the said plaintiff, repudiated said employment and utterly and wrongfully failed and refused to carry out said employment of said plaintiff that said defendant employed and installed another person in the capacity for which said plaintiff was employed as aforesaid; that said plaintiff made diligent effort to regain the position formerly held by him with said Standard Oil Company, which position said plaintiff had resigned and surrendered in consideration of his acceptance of employment with said defendant. but that said Standard Oil Company refused to re-employ the plaintiff; that by the refusal of said defendant to carry out the said oral contract of employment with said plaintiff, the said plaintiff, although diligently seeking other employments, was and has been thrown out of and deprived of employment and was and has been unable to procure other employment to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $15,000.
The writ of error now before us was sued out by plaintiff to a judgment of dismissal entered by the circuit judge, who gave as his reasons for dismissing the cause the following:
The learned circuit judge was in error in ordering the case below dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
While under chapter 11357, Acts 1925 (Ex. Sess.), the civil court of record created in and for Dade county has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases at law where the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $5,000, the amount of damages claimed in the present case filed in the circuit court of Dade county was and is $15,000, and the jurisdiction of such circuit court in the premises depends not upon the amount of damages which is actually recoverable as a matter of law, but is determined by the sum in good faith demanded or actually put in controversy. A. Mortellaro & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 91 Fla. 230, 107 So. 528; Hutchinson v. Courtney, 86 Fla. 556, 98 So. 582. Compare: Director General of Railroads v. Wilford, 81 Fla. 430, 88 So. 256; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Maxey, 64 Fla. 487, 60 So. 353.
It was the theory of plaintiff's declaration, as filed in the circuit court, that where a servant gives up a position which he has in order to enter into the service of a master under a contract of employment, although for an indefinite period and the benefits of the position which the servant already has are made known by the servant to the master and are thereby in the contemplation of the parties at the time of the making of the contract, the master's repudiation of his own contract of employment in consideration of which the servant gave up his former employment constitutes a breach of contract which will entitle the servant to recover the loss of benefits of the former position as an element of special damages for the master's breach. Such being the contention of the plaintiff and the amount of damages which would accrue to him in the event such contentions were sustained by the court being in excess of $5,000 according to the allegations of the declaration, it necessarily follows that the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine plaintiff's contention, and to allow it or disallow it as a matter of law, in so far as the allegations of the declaration are concerned. And the mere fact that the court below reached the conclusion that the contentions of plaintiff were not sound as matters of law did not oust it of jurisdiction to decide the controversy as one within the jurisdictional amount of the circuit court of Dade county. In fact, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Civ. A. No. 82-K-1185.
...Beef Packing Company, 220 Kan. 52, 551 P.2d 779 (1976); Lynas v. Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich. 684, 273 N.W. 315 (1937); Knudson v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240 (1934); Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 117, 42 N.E. 416 (1895). The rule is said to have its origin as "an adjunct to th......
-
Lackey v. Whitehall Corp., Civ. A. No. 85-2639-S.
...discharge under a common law theory. Under Florida common law, the plaintiffs were employees at will. See Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 52, 156 So. 240, 242 (Fla.1934) (If the employee contract does not guarantee employment for a definite period of time, the employment relationship is term......
-
Crawford v. David Shapiro & Co., P.A.
...is no provision for the duration of employment, the employment contract is terminable at the will of either party, Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240 (1934); Sher v. Shower Door Co. of America, Ltd., 197 So.2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Hope v. National Airlines, Inc., 99 So.2d 244 (Fl......
-
Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, G-6
...be indefinite, either party may terminate it at any time. Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Willett, 43 Fla. 311, 31 So. 246; Knudsen v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240; Wynne v. Ludman Corp., Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 'In the absence of an affirmative allegation of employment for a definite duration, t......