Lichtenstein v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 22 November 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 975
• Parties: LICHTENSTEIN <I>v.</I> BROOKS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 975

LICHTENSTEINv.

BROOKS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 22, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Hopkins county; E. W. TERHUNE, Judge.

Peteet & Crosby, for appellant. E. B. Perkins and Leach & Templeton, for appellee.

HENRY, J.

Appellant was employed by appellee to work in his store from the 1st of March, 1888, until the 1st of January, 1889. The wages were to be paid monthly at the end of each month. The contract was performed by both parties until the 16th day of June, when appellant was discharged, without cause, so far as the record before us discloses. In July appellant sued in justice's court, and recovered a judgment for the amount of wages due him in the month of June, which was paid by appellee. In each of the months of August, September, and October he instituted a suit for the amount of wages that would have been due him under the contract for the preceding month, claiming the same as damages for the breach of contract for each month, and was threatening to bring a separate suit for each month until the expiration of the time for which he had been employed, unless he sooner found employment. While the three suits were pending, appellee brought this suit in the district court to enjoin plaintiff from prosecuting them or instituting the other threatened suits on the same cause of action. The district court, on final hearing, perpetually enjoined the defendant from prosecuting each of said suits, and also from instituting another suit for damages for the breach of said contract of hiring. Appellant contends that as his wages were due at the end of each month, and the sum due for each month was fixed by the contract, each month's failure to pay was a separate breach of the contract, for which he can prosecute an independent suit, and he contends that as he could not sue in advance for the full amount of his damages, or even know in advance how much he may be damaged by the breach, he must be allowed to prosecute suits as each month's wages would have matured. In the case of Meade v. Rutledge, 11 Tex. 54, referring to a case analogous to this, it is said: "The rule for estimating his compensation is not the contract price for the whole period, but the damages and loss actually sustained, not, however, to exceed the amount to which he would have been entitled, had the contract been fulfilled." It is the duty of the injured party to find other employment if he can, and if he succeeds the amount of his damages will be reduced by the...