Norton v. Cowell

• Citation: 4 A. 408,65 Md. 359
• Parties: NORTON v. COWELL.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1886
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

4 A. 408

65 Md. 359

NORTON

v. COWELL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May, 1886.

Appeal from the Baltimore city court.

John Stewart and David Stewart, for appellant.

Richard Hamilton, for appellee.

ALVEY, C. J. This action was brought to recover wages alleged to be due from the appellant to the appellee on a contract of hiring. The appellant, residing at RIO DE JANEIRO, in South America, was owner of certain ships trading to and from ports in the United States; and, the appellee having been in the service of the appellant for 18 months or more prior to the twentieth of August, 1883, the latter addressed to the appellee the following letter, which was given in evidence as proof of the contract of hiring sued on:

"Rio de Janeiro, August 20, 1883.

"Capt. John Cowell—DEAR SIR: Your conduct during the last eighteen (18) months that you have been in my employ, has given me great satisfaction; and now, as I put all my ships under my own flag, I appoint you superintendent of all my ships, both here and at any ports in the U. S., America, and you will please help all my captains to get quick dispatch, and also see that no damaged or bad cargo is shipped, as all the lumber cargo are shipped on my ac. You have my permission to take your family, or any of them, in any of my ships, whenever it may suit your convenience, from U. S. to Rio and back, and your wages will be ($100) one hundred dollars per month, with all hotel and other expenses; and, if you give me satisfaction at the end of the first year, I will increase your salary accordingly.

"I am, dear sir, yours truly,

"A. M. NORTON, Ship-owner."

It is admitted that the appellee accepted the proposal contained in the letter, and continued in the service of the appellant for about three months thereafter, under the new terms of employment, when he was discharged from further service without legal cause therefor, as contended by him, but was paid his wages down to the time of his discharge; and having been thus illegally discharged, as contended by the appellee, he brought this action to recover of the appellant the balance of the year's wages, upon the theory that the letter, and the acceptance of the terms thereof, constituted a contract of hiring for one year, at the rate of $100 per month and expenses, and therefore the discharge of the appellee was not justified by the terms of the contract; it being conceded that he had furnished no justifiable cause of discharge.

As the case is presented on this...