Krech v. Pacific R.R.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1876
• Citation: 64 Mo. 172
• Parties: ERNST. KRECH, Respondent, v. PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

64 Mo. 172

ERNST. KRECH, Respondent,

v.PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1876.

Appeal from Franklin County Circuit Court

D. R. O'Neil, for Respondent.

Ewing. Smith & Pope, for Appellant.

NORTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit instituted in the circuit court of Franklin county to recover for the boarding and lodging of the employees of defendant. The petition in substance alleges that defendant contracted with plaintiff to furnish board and lodging to its employees, whenever required by them, at a stipulated price of twenty-five cents per meal; that defendant agreed to deduct from the time pay rolls of each and every employee, to whom boarding and lodging were furnished, the amount of money due plaintiff, and pay the same over to him; that plaintiff at the request of defendant did board his servants from 1870 to February 1872, which amounted in the aggregate to the sum of $442.65, the particulars of which are set out in an account attached to the petition as part of it; that neither the defendant nor the employees had paid said amounts, and by the failure of defendant to deduct the same from the pay rolls of such employees, and pay them over to plaintiff, the defendant was liable to him in the sum of $442.65.

The answer of defendant denied all the material allegations of the petition, and upon a trial of the cause judgment was rendered for plaintiff. During the progress of the trial exceptions were taken to the action of the court in admitting evidence, in allowing an amendment to the petition, and in giving and refusing instructions.

The plaintiff testified that when trains commenced running on defendant's road, 18 or 19 years ago, to the town of Hermann, he was station agent for defendant at that point, and that the general superintendent and pay master of defendant agreed with one Liemer, who was keeping Leimer's hotel in Hermann, that each employee of the road, who could not pay cash to Leimer for his board, should give an order to the paymaster for the amount due, and authorizing a deduction of the same from the sums due the employee from the company, which orders at the end of each month were to be sent to the assistant superintendent, and by him to be sent to the paymaster to be deducted from the pay of the men, and the amounts deducted to be paid to Liemer. It appeared that Liemer kept the hotel under that arrangement till 1860 when he died, and that the hotel was afterwards kept by Liemer's administrator, Mrs. Liemer, and her brother, in the same way till 1868, when plaintiff rented it and carried on his business with defendant in the same way, defendant paying plaintiff on orders for board at the end of each month.

An objection was made by defendant to the admission of so much of the above evidence as related to the contract with Liemer and other parties, while they were keeping the hotel, on the ground of irrelevancy.

We think that this objection was not well taken. The witness testified without objection that when he rented the hotel, in 1868, he carried on business with defendant in boarding its employees in the same way, or under the same arrangement, as it had been carried on by Liemer and those who had preceded him in the hotel, and it was certainly competent for him to state what that arrangement or agreement was between Liemer and defendant, and that his contract was but a continuance of that.

The objections made to the statement of witness, “that Talmage, superintendent of the road, issued an order that the company would not be responsible to boarding house-keepers on these orders any more after the 1st day of ...