Raysor v. Berkeley Co. Ry. & Lumber Co
Decision Date | 19 March 1887 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Raysor v. Berkeley Co. Ry. & Lumber Co. |
Master and Servant—Contract—Implied Assent.
The plaintiff, an employe of the defendant, demanded an increase of wages to commence January 1, 1885, and gave due notice to defendant's agent that he would leave unless such increase was made. The agent promised to give an answer in two or three days, but failed to do so for several months, allowing the plaintiff in the meanwhile to continue work. Thereupon plaintiff was told that his salary would be increased as demanded, but to commence May 1, 1885. Held, that the silence of the agent did not raise the implication of assent on the part of the defendant, and that plaintiff was not entitled to the increase for the time from January 1 to May 1, 1885.
Appeal from circuit court, Charleston county.
Chas. Boyle, for plaintiff.
Chas. E. Carrere, for defendant and appellant.
This was an action before Trial Justice Minott for $75. The plaintiff, Raysor, was a director in the defendant corporation, and employed by it as the superintendent of Raysor's Mills. Anterior to January, 1885, he was receiving a salary of $100 per month, and about that time he had an interview with John C. Mallance, superintendent of the affairs of the company in Charleston, and requested that his salary should be raised to $125 per month; stating that he would leave unless such increase was made. The justice reports: etc.
Upon appeal to the common pleas, the circuit judge confirmed the report, and the defendant corporation appeals upon the ground "that his honor erred...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips & Jordan, Inc. v. McCarthy Improvement Co.
...acceptance where nothing else is shown." H.A. Sack Co. v. Forest Beach Public Service Dist., 250 S.E.2d 340(1978); Raysor v. Berkley Co. Ry. & Lumber Co., 2 S.E. 119 (1887); Florence City-Cnty. Airport Comm'n v. Air Terminal Parking Co., 322 S.E.2d 471, 473 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984). 165. If the......
-
Bowley v. Fuller
...could be referred to that subsisting contract, and in the absence of any new contract, would be referred to it. Raysor v. Berkeley Co. Ry. & L Co., 26 S. C. 610, 2 S. E. 119. A mere failure to reject cannot be converted into an acceptance unless the offeree has agreed in advance that such s......
-
Florence City-County Airport Com'n v. Air Terminal Parking Co.
...else is shown. H.A. Sack Co. v. Forest Beach Public Service District, 272 S.C. 235, 250 S.E.2d 340 (1978); Raysor v. Berkley Co. Ry. & Lumber Co., 26 S.C. 610, 2 S.E. 119 (1887). Air Terminal concedes that the parties never mutually agreed or negotiated a reduction in rental fees, but conte......
- Colleton Realty Co v. Folk