Lambert v. Hartshorne

• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Citation: 65 Mo. 549
• Parties: LAMBERT v. HARTSHORNE, APPELLANT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 Mo. 549

LAMBERT

v.HARTSHORNE, APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Appeal from Linn Court of Common Pleas. HON. THOMAS WHITAKER, Judge.Ell Torrance, for appellant, cited 2 Greenleaf Ev. §§ 254, 256; Henschen v. O'Bannon, 56 Mo. 289; Otto v. Bent, 48 Mo. 23: Buel v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 562.

George W. Easley and A. W. Mullins, for respondent, cited Clements v. Maloney, 55 Mo. 358; Sears v. Wall, 49 Mo. 359; Budd v. Hoffheimer, 52 Mo. 297; Ream v. Watkins, 27 Mo. 518.

HOUGH, J.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for an alleged breach of a contract of hiring and service for the period of one year, occasioned by the wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff.

It is agreed that the defendant hired the plaintiff as engineer for his mill, on the 28th day of August, 1873, at forty dollars per month, and discharged him on the 28th day of December, 1873, and paid him in full to that date, but the testimony was conflicting as to the length of time for which he was hired; the plaintiff's witnesses and the plaintiff himself testifying that the hiring was for one year, while the defendant and his witnesses testified that the hiring was from month to month. It appears that in February or March, 1874, the plaintiff obtained other employment at nirty dollars per month which continued until the following August when he received forty dollars per month. Evidence was admitted, against the objections of the defendant, of the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in moving from Linneus to Meadville, where he engaged to render service, amounting to $2.50, and the expenses incurred in moving back to Linneus after he was discharged. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of one hundred dollars, and the defendant has brought the case here by appeal.

1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES: Contract of hiring: Instruction.

2. ____: De minimis non curat lex.

The question whether the plaintiff was wrongfully disdischarged was properly submitted to the jury, and the only question which it is necessary for us to notice is as to the measure of damages. The instruction on this subject was as follows: “If the jury find for the plaintiff, they should assess his damages at such sum as they may believe from the evidence he has sustained, not exceeding the amount of three hundred and fifty dollars.” This was the amount stated in the ad damnum clause of the petition. This suit was brought on the 17th day of January, 1874, before the expiration of the term for which the plaintiff alleges he was employed. In an action for wrongful discharge brought before the...