Nearns v. Harbert

• Decision Date: 31 July 1857
• Citation: 25 Mo. 352
• Parties: NEARNS, Respondent, v. HARBERT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

25 Mo. 352

NEARNS, Respondent,

v.HARBERT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1857.

1. Where an employé is discharged before the term of his employment ex pires, the contract price of his services will be, prima facie, the measure of the damages received by him from the breach of the contract.

2. The Supreme Court will not grant new trials on the ground that verdicts are against the weight of evidence.

Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court.

The plaintiff sets forth in his petition that defendant, on the 2d day of April, 1856, employed plaintiff, for the term of twelve months, as an engineer, to run his steam saw mill, for fifty dollars per month, and agreed also to furnish him, plaintiff, with a dwelling house and fuel for the same time, and to pay his wages monthly; that he commenced work of defendant in compliance with said contract on the 27th day of May, 1856, and continued in his employ, faithfully discharging the duties of an engineer, until July 6th, 1856, at which time defendant, without provocation or cause, dismissed him from his employment, and thereby prevented him from fulfilling his contract. Plaintiff claimed $600 damages.

Defendant admitted in his answer the employment of plaintiff as alleged in the petition, but alleged that the hiring was induced by representations made by plaintiff that he was a skillful engineer, well acquainted with the managing and conducting of a steam engine; that plaintiff entered upon the execution of his contract, and was incapable of complying with it by reason of his ignorance of the duties of an engineer; therefore plaintiff discharged him.

The court gave the following instructions asked by plaintiff: “1. If the jury believe from the evidence before them that the defendant employed the plaintiff as an engineer for the term of twelve months, and that defendant discharged plaintiff from his service before the expiration of the twelve months, they must find for the plaintiff the price agreed on for a year's service, unless they also believe that plaintiff was not qualified to perform the services he agreed to perform, or that plaintiff failed or neglected to perform them. 2. It is admitted by the pleadings in this case that defendant did employ plaintiff for the space of twelve months, at the price of fifty dollars a month, and, also, that defendant discharged plaintiff before the expiration of that time.”

The following instructions asked by the defendant were given to the jury: “1. If the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiff hired himself to defendant as a first class or competent engineer, the defendant had a right to discharge him from his service, and that plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action. 2. If the defendant hired plaintiff as a first class engineer, and the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiff was not competent to discharge such service as a first class engineer, they must find for defendant. 3. If the...