Paige v. Same

• Decision Date: 26 February 1890
• Citation: 151 Mass. 67,23 N.E. 725
• Parties: PAIGE v. BARRETT et al. NEWCOMB v. SAME.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

151 Mass. 67

23 N.E. 725

PAIGE

v.BARRETT et al.

NEWCOMB

v.SAME.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Feb. 26, 1890.

Exceptions from superior court, Worcester county; H.B. STAPLES, Judge.

Action by D.W. Paige against Oliver S. Barrett and others, and by C. Edward Newcomb against the same. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, and defendants excepted.

Geo. H. Mellen, for plaintiffs.

W.A. Gile, for defendants.

HOLMES, J.

The declarations in these cases allege contracts to employ the plaintiffs until April 1, 1887, at a certain rate and a breach by a wrongful discharge before that date. They conclude: “Wherefore the defendants owe him, *** the amount of his wages” from the date of his discharge to April 1, 1887. This conclusion is inartificial, but the declaration shows that the claim is for what the plaintiffs are entitled to recover in respect of the time after their discharge. There was no demurrer, but only a request for a ruling that, upon the evidence, the actions were prematurely brought, (the actions having been begun before April 1st.) This was properly refused. The plaintiffs' only cause of action was for damages for a breach of contract. Howard v. Daly, 61 N.Y. 362, 369; Goodman v. Pocock, 15 Q.B. 576, 582, 583; Elderton v. Emmens, 6 C.B. 160, 178, 13 C.B. 495, 509, 4 H.L.Cas. 624, 646. That accrued as soon as the plaintiffs were discharged, the jury, in estimating the damages, having a right to take into account on one side the wages which the plaintiffs would have earned. Blair v. Laflin, 127 Mass. 518, 522;Everson v. Powers, 89 N.Y. 527. See Daniels v. Newton, 114 Mass. 530, 538.

There was sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiffs to go to the jury. Each of them testified to a contract in language which admitted, if it did not require, the construction that they were employed until April 1st. The authority of the man who employed them, one Jordan, was denied by the defendants. But there was evidence that Jordan had general superintendence of the business; that one Pentecost, whom the defendants declared to have been their general manager, having general authority to hire workmen, was under Jordan, and subject to his orders as to hiring workmen, while Jordan was there; that Jordan hired workmen personally; and that he was habitually dealt with by the defendants as having full authority. It appears that the plaintiffs were employed upon the defendants' general work, that they were not confined to what the...