Roberts v. Rigdon
| Decision Date | 08 October 1888 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. RIGDON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Though suit be brought before the term of hiring expired, yet the recovery may embrace all the damages down to the expiration of the term,--the trial being had after the whole of such damages became susceptible of definite proof; that is, after the term expired.
That the verdict was too small is no injury to the defendant, and no cause for a new trial at his instance.
The finding of the jury to the effect that defendant had no right to discharge the plaintiff at pleasure, under the contract for 1887, was warranted by the evidence.
Error from city court of Atlanta; VAN EPPS, Judge.
Plaintiff having been hired for a year, was discharged before the end of the first quarter, and sued for breach of the contract. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Milledge & Blalock, for plaintiff in error.
Alexander & Turnbull, for defendant in error.
Employed for the year to work in furniture factory at $1.50 per day. Discharged before first quarter expired. Suit for damages by breach of the contract. The discharge alleged to be without cause. Action commenced before the year expired. Damages laid at $370.50. Trial had after the year expired. Verdict for $200. Evidence showed that plaintiff realized $67 from other employment after discharge, and before the end of the year. No evidence of want of diligence to procure other employment. There had been in the previous year the same relation between the parties, at less wages. Most probably the contract for the previous service was in writing, with a stipulation that defendant could discharge plaintiff whenever not satisfied to retain him. The alleged writing had been lost at the time of trial. Whether, in the subsequent parol contract, (the one sued on,) the terms of the writing as to discharge were adopted, is uncertain. The defendant's justification for the discharge turned on that question, and the jury must have found in the negative.
1. That the state of facts down to the time of trial, or rather down to the expiration of the term of hiring, the trial having been had afterwards, could be considered in order to ascertain the plaintiff's damages resulting from the alleged breach, was ruled at the present term in the case of Roberts v. Crowley, ante, 740. Though the action was commenced long before the term ended yet all the damages resulting from the breach, up to the limit of the agreed wages, which the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co
...by our decision on the first appearance of this case. In Roberts v. Crowley, 81 Ga. 429 (3), 7 S. E. 740, and Roberts v. Rigden, 81 Ga. 440 (1), 7 S. E. 742, each of the plaintiffs claimed damages for the entire period of the contract, although the suit was commenced before the expiration o......
-
Gary v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
...contemplated by our decision on the first appearance of this case. In Roberts v. Crowley, 81 Ga. 429 (3), 7 S.E. 740, and Roberts v. Rigden, 81 Ga. 440 (1), 7 S.E. 742, of the plaintiffs claimed damages for the entire period of the contract, although the suit was commenced before the expira......
-
Harvey v. JH Harvey Co.
...Co. v. Parsons, supra at 183(2), 76 S.E. 1063. See also Sandt v. Mason, 208 Ga. 541, 546(2), 67 S.E.2d 767 (1951); Roberts v. Rigden, 81 Ga. 440, 443(1), 7 S.E. 742 (1888); Roberts v. Crowley, 81 Ga. 429, 439(3), 7 S.E. 740 (1888). Limiting the discharged employee's recovery to such damages......
-
Johns v. League, Duvall & Powell
...be distinguished on principle from the instant case and which are controlling. According to our view, the following, in addition to Roberts v. Rigden, supra, cannot be distinguished: Ellis v. United States Fertilizing & Chemical Co., 64 Ga. 571(1); Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Trammell, 11......