O'Neil v. Schneller
| Decision Date | 08 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 90-1915 |
| Citation | 63 Pa.Super. 196 |
| Parties | O'Neil v. Schneller, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued December 8, 1915 [Syllabus Matter]
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Northampton Co.-1912, No 57, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Richard O'Neill v. W. F. Schneller, et al., Copartners, trading as Schneller & Snyder Co.
Assumpsit for wages. Before Johnson, P. J.
At the trial it appeared that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a cutter in their tailoring business for a period of one year from September 1, 1911, at a salary of $ 50 a week. In January, 1912, difference arose as to the plaintiff's manner of performing his work, and his conduct towards other employees and the members of the defendants' firm. There was conflicting evidence as to whether he was actually discharged, or whether he left by mutual consent.
The court after submitting to the jury the evidence relating to the discharge, and also the evidence as to the manner in which he did his work charged on the question of insubordination as follows:
Now the question for you to determine is was this plaintiff a disobedient and insubordinate servant. It was his duty to act in a reasonable manner to work for the best interests of his employers and be obedient to them in a reasonable and proper manner and serve them in a reasonable and proper way; and you will take all the evidence in the case and see whether or not he was obedient and a subordinate servant in a reasonable and proper manner. You will recall all the testimony, and it will be for you to determine whether or not these things existed. What was the conduct of the plaintiff? You will have to determine that and whether it was proper conduct or not. We do not say that every slight mistake would be a good ground for a discharge. It is not expected that the plaintiff is perfect. A perfect man or a perfect woman does not exist on this land. We don't expect that. We must be reasonable. Therefore the laws say that he be required to act in a reasonable manner, that he be reasonably obedient and reasonably subordinate so that he could work for the best interests of the defendants. While this is required it is not required that the plaintiff be a perfect man in every aspect of his demeanor, but that he would act in a reasonable and proper manner so as to serve the best interests of the defendants. When the plaintiff has proved the contract and the discharge the burden in the first instance is shifted to the defendants to prove by the weight of the evidence that the discharge was on good ground, was for proper legal cause. These are the issues that you are to determine from the evidence. First was there a discharge or was there a termination of the contract by mutual consent. If it was terminated by mutual consent of the parties, that would be the end of the case, and your verdict would be for the defendants; but if there was a discharge then the defendants would have to prove by the weight of the evidence that the discharge was for cause, and if it was for a proper legal cause, then your verdict would have to be for the defendants but if he was discharged not for cause, then your verdict would have to be for the plaintiff.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 1,074.38. Defendants appealed.
Errors assigned, amongst others, were in refusing binding instructions for defendant and portion of charge as above quoting it.
Reversed.
J. W. Fox, with him E. J. Fox, for appellants. -- Faithful service is a condition precedent to the right of a servant to recover wages. Misconduct inconsistent with the relation of master and servant will justify the master in putting an end to the contract of service at any time: Singer v. McCormick, 4 W. & S. 265; Elliott v. Wanamaker, 155 Pa. 67; Peniston v. John Y. Huber Co., 196 Pa. 580; Carson v. Hosiery Co., 15 Pa.Super. 476; Matthews v. Park Bros. & Co., Ltd., 159 Pa. 579; Hand v. Clearfield Coal Co., 143 Pa. 408.
Paul C. Hamlin, with him F. H. Lehr, A. J. and L. J. Bamberger, for appellee. -- The question of the existence of a ground for discharge, upon which a justification can be based by the employer, is for the jury: Wilke v. Harrison, 166 Pa. 202; Vandevort v. Wheeling Steel & Iron Co., 194 Pa. 118; Second Natl. Bank, Etc., v. Hoffman, 229 Pa. 429; Allentown Iron Co. v. McLaughlin, 24 W.N.C. 343.
Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Henderson, Kepha...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernstein v. Lipper Manufacturing Co.
...facts, it is a question of law for the court and not a question of fact for a jury: Peniston v. Huber Co., 196 Pa. 580; O'Neil v. Schneller, 63 Pa.Super. 196; Carson v. Hosiery Co., 15 Pa.Super. Gallagher v. Steam Co., 188 Pa. 95; Lovett v. Goodman, 88 Pa.Super. 258; Elliott v. Wanamaker, 1......
-
Lightcap v. Keaggy
...a right to have it, and it was part of Mr. Lightcap's duties to obtain it. The willful refusal justified the discharge. In O'Neil v. Schneller, 63 Pa.Super. 196 (1916), plaintiff had been employed for a definite term. testimony was conflicting on the question of whether he had performed his......
-
Bechtel v. Combs Broad Street Conservatory of Music
... ... Wayne Steam Co., 188 Pa. 95; Elliot v ... Wanamaker, 155 Pa. 67; O'Neill v ... Schneller, 63 Pa.Super. 196; Penniston v ... Huber, 196 Pa. 580; Corgan v. Lee Coal Co., 218 ... Theo ... Cuyler Patterson, for appellee ... ...
-
Ott v. Buehler Lumber Co.
...entity before Appellee's dismissal for just cause would be permitted. Analogous to the instant case is the case of O'Neil v. Schneller, 63 Pa.Super. 196 (1916). In O'Neil, the plaintiff had been employed for a definite term. The testimony was conflicting on whether he had performed his duti......