Posner v. Seder
| Decision Date | 23 October 1903 |
| Citation | 68 N.E. 335,184 Mass. 331 |
| Parties | POSNER v. SEDER et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Rockwood Hoar, for plaintiff.
Dodge & Taft, for defendants.
Under the contract the defendants were to employ the plaintiff for one year, and pay him for his services $17 a week, 'the same to be paid at the end of each and every week.' The plaintiff was to report at the shop for duty at 6:30 a. m and remain there on duty until 6 p. m., with the exception of the hour between noon and 1 p. m., and was 'also without extra pay, to work overtime at said shop, * * * not more than two hours in one day and not more than two months in the aggregate in the year.' The defendants broke the contract by the discharge of the plaintiff. In such a case the innocent party may either sue on the contract for damages for the breach, or, if he so elects, he may regard the action of the defendants as indicating a purpose on their part to repudiate the contract, may accept the repudiation, and recover upon a quantum meruit the value of his services as if the special contract had not existed. Brown v Woodbury, 183 Mass. 279, 67 N.E. 327. In this case the plaintiff has sued upon a quantum meruit for the value of only a part of the services, namely, for those rendered in the extra hours named in the contract. The plaintiff contends that the $17 which he received each week was payment for only the time between 6:30 a. m. and 6 p. m., and not for the extra time; and that, therefore, he may, upon breach of the contract, appropriate the weekly sum to the payment of the services during the regular hours, and recover on quantum meruit for the extra time. The defendants, on the contrary, contend that the $17 was a payment for the services of the week, whatever they were, and therefore that the plaintiff has been fully paid, and so cannot recover. Neither view seems to us correct. The contract was to continue a year. The weekly hours of labor were variable, and it is fair to assume that there would be a weekly variation in the value of the services. The contract is to be taken as a whole. On the one hand, the defendants could not hold the plaintiff to the work during the extra hours in any week for the sum of $17 except in connection with the other part of the contract, namely, that they were to pay him $17 in other weeks when there was no extra time; nor, on the other hand, could the plaintiff hold the defendants to the payment of $17 for a week in which he did not work extra time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Inhabitants of Athol
... ... adopted at law in Bailey v. Marden, 193 Mass. 277, ... 79 N.E. 257; Brown v. Woodbury, 183 Mass. 279, 67 ... N.E. 327; Posner v. Seder, 184 Mass. 331, 333, 68 ... N.E. 335; Simmons v. Lawrence Duck Co., 133 Mass ... 298; and Fitzgerald v. Allen, 128 Mass. 232. The ... ...
-
Scaduto v. Orlando
...but by the actual value of labor and materials. See, e. g., Beaudoin v. Lenza, 338 Mass. 798, 156 N.E.2d 682 (1959); Posner v. Seder, 184 Mass. 331, 68 N.E. 335 (1903); Connolly v. Sullivan, 173 Mass. 1, 53 N.E. 143 (1899); Fitzgerald v. Allen, 128 Mass. 232 (1880). The Massachusetts rule i......
-
Dalton v. American Ammonia Co.
...v. Allen, 128 Mass. 232;Connolly v. Sullivan, 173 Mass. 1, 53 N. E. 143;Brown v. Woodbury, 183 Mass. 279, 67 N. E. 327;Posner v. Seder, 184 Mass. 331, 68 N. E. 335. The plaintiff recovered in the municipal court upon an account annexed for the expenses and the installments of salary due und......
-
Tobin v. Kells
...contract and so the latter had a right to treat it as no longer binding ( Bailey v. Marden, 193 Mass. 277, 79 N.E. 257; Posner v. Seder, 184 Mass. 331, 333, 68 N.E. 335; Brown v. Woodbury, 183 Mass. 279, 67 N.E. 327), else that it had been annulled by the consent of both parties. But the de......