Roberts v. Crowley

• Decision Date: 05 October 1888
• Citation: 2 S.E. 740,81 Ga. 429
• Parties: Roberts v. Crowley.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

2 S.E. 740

(81 Ga. 429)

Roberts

v.Crowley.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 5, 1888.

1. Appeal—Review—Weight of Evidence.

When several writings in evidence all harmonize, and bear with united and with powerful force against the verdict, a new trial may be granted.

2. Same—Matter not Apparent op Record.

A cross-interrogatory was not sufficiently answered, but the record does not affirmatively disclose that the court erred in overruling the exception, the time and mode of taking and presenting the exception not appearing.

8. Damages—Breach op Contract—Measure of Damages.

All relevant facts transpiring between the wrongful discharge of a servant and the trial of his action therefor (the same being an action for breach of the contract of employment, and brought before the contract term had expired) may be considered in estimating the damages. Measure of damages for the breach in question indicated.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Atlanta; Van Epps, Judge.

Action by Crowley against Roberts for breach of contract for employment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Milledge & Blalock, for plaintiff in error.

Alexander & Turnbull, for defendant in error.

Bleckley, C. J. The writings in evidence are very powerful in their bearing against the correctness of the verdict, so much so that the matter ought to be investigated by a new trial. There is nothing to contradict the testimony of Roberts that the paper purporting to be the contract for 1886 was handed to him by Crowley with his name signed to it. Whether Crowleysigned his own name makes no difference. He could adopt the signature made by another, and so he did, if he delivered the paper to Roberts as his contract. He testifies that the contract for that year was not in writing, except as contained in certain letters, and so he may think; but if he delivered to Roberts the instrument dated January 13th, with his name appended to it, it was in writing, and he is mistaken. The instrument shows for itself, and it contains a stipulation by which May & Roberts could discharge Crowley at any time; and there is no doubt, according to all the evidence, that the contract for 1887 was the same as that for 1886, save as to the amount of compensation. The testimonial given by May & Roberts to Crowley upon his discharge, on the 3d of March, 1887, is almost conclusive that both parties treated the engagement as then at an end, for it recommends him for employment "to all whom it may concern;" and he accepted employment in Memphis within a few days thereafter. He had sent away his family a short time before, and neither he nor they, so far as appears, have ever returned to Atlanta. When only two months of the year had elapsed, why should he want to be recommended for similar positions if he retained his position with May & Roberts? Would he have asked for such a recommendation unless he was out of their employment? Would they have given it unless he had gone out willingly, or consistently with some conceded right in them to discharge him? It may fairly be presumed that there was some human nature in May & Roberts, if not in Mr. Crowley himself. Giving both parties credit for an ordinary share...