Miller v. N.W. Ritter Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1908
• Parties: MILLER v. N. W. RITTER LUMBER CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

110 S.W. 869

MILLER v. N. W. RITTER LUMBER CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 5, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Robert L. Miller against the N.W. Ritter Lumber Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. S Cline, for appellant.

Auxier & Auxier, for appellee.

LASSING J.

Appellant Robert L. Miller, was employed by the appellee company to assist in abstracting titles to certain properties in Buchanan county, Va. After he had been engaged some three months or more in this work, he was discharged by the company, whereupon he filed this suit, seeking to recover of the company $650 for five months' services and expenses alleging that he had been employed by the appellee company for eight months at the agreed price of $100 per month for his services and $30 per month for his expenses. The company denied liability, admitted the employment, but denied that it was for any specified time. Proof was taken by deposition and the case tried by the court, by agreement, without the intervention of a jury, and the trial judge found for appellee and dismissed appellant's petition. We are asked to review his finding and judgment.

The sole question in the case is: Was the employment for a fixed and definite time or was it such an employment as either could terminate at will? But two witnesses have testified appellant and the agent of appellee, with whom the contract was made. They differ as to the terms of the contract; appellant insisting that the employment was for eight months, while appellee's agent testifies that the employment was not for any specified length of time, and that the continuance of the employment was discretionary with either party. Certain letters which passed between them are filed with their depositions. In one of these letters, written after appellant had been at work for more than a month, he makes this inquiry: "In order that I may arrange some private affairs I would be glad if you would let me know as near as possible how long you think the company will employ me. If I will be here for a long enough time to justify it, I am thinking of bringing my wife here and keeping house, as getting board is such an item and so unsatisfactory. I can arrange to get a furnished house, and would like to hear from you in order to notify the party owning same as to whether or not I will want it." The tone and tenor of this letter is clearly against the claim and contention of appellant, but he relies upon the letter written to him in response to this inquiry, in which the following language is used: "Replying to your letter in reference to time that the company will need your services in Grundy, it is impossible for me at this time to determine, for the reason that I can't determine how long it will take you and Mr. Litz to do the work which the company now has outlined, and, when you are through this, it...