Pratt v. Blakey

• Decision Date: 30 April 1838
• Citation: 5 Mo. 205
• Parties: EDWIN G. PRATT v. WILLIAM BLAKEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

5 Mo. 205

EDWIN G. PRATT

v.WILLIAM BLAKEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1838.

EDWARDS, J.

This was an action of assumpsit by Blakey against Pratt Pleas non-assumpsit and set-off, and issue on each. A bill of particulars filed in the cause exhibits the character of Blakey's demand, and fixes the amount at $1,326 80. Pratt's demand was for services rendered as clerk in the receiver's office. Blakey was receiver. Verdict and judgment for Blakey, and damages assessed at $519 36. Pratt moved for a new trial, and the court overruled the motion.

The refusal of the court to grant a new trial is assigned for error.

One of the witnesses, John W. Haydon, as appears from the bill of exceptions saved in this cause, stated that Blakey asked Pratt in his presence “if he did not agree to give him $200 00 a year, and that afterwards he had agreed to raise the price to $400 00, as business had increased, to which Pratt assented.” The witness aterwards stated that he alluded to the first contract, “two hundred dollars for the first year, and four hundred annually thereafter.”

Another witness, William Wright, register of the land office, stated that Pratt commenced labors as clerk about the 17th of October, 1834, and continued until about February, 1837, being about two years and four months. That Pratt contracted with Blakey at $200 00 a year, but that five or six months after, Pratt told Blakey that he could not afford to work for that sum, when Blakey agreed to pay Pratt more, as business had increased. No definite sum was agreed on. This witness further stated, that he would consider five hundred dollars a year a reasonable sum for the services of a clerk in a receiver's office, provided he did all the business.

Part of Blakey's demand consists of $125 00, paid to James L. Minor, for making up three quarterly returns, and $25 00 paid for filling up receipts; in all, $150 00. Making these returns, and filling the receipts were part of the duties in the receiver's office. It does not appear from the testimony in this cause that Pratt was to perform all the duties of the office. It does appear that the business greatly increased after Pratt commenced the duties of clerk.

If Pratt had undertaken to perform all the duties of clerk in the receiver's office, and, in consequence of his negligence it had become necessary for the receiver to employ aid to bring up the business, Pratt would have been liable for reasonable compensation paid the persons thus employed; or, if Pratt had received for acting as clerk what it was reasonably worth to discharge all the duties of clerk in the receiver's office, and it had become necessary to employ aid to bring up the business, he might have been...