Salb v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 23 February 1886
• Citation: 65 Wis. 405,27 N.W. 45
• Parties: SALB v. CAMPBELL AND OTHERS.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

65 Wis. 405

27 N.W. 45

SALB

v.CAMPBELL AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed February 23, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county.

M. C. & A. C. Krause, for appellant.

D. G. Rogers, for respondents.

TAYLOR, J.

This action was brought by the appellant to recover of the respondent for the services of his minor son, Joseph Salb. The complaint alleges that said Joseph worked for the respondents from August 1 to September 15, 1882, for the agreed price of five dollars per week, and that the services were reasonably worth that sum; that he also performed extra work during that time, which was reasonably worth five dollars per week; that the extra work amounted to four days; and claimed as damages, $36.66. The defendant answered first by a general denial; and then alleged “that in February, 1881, they entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, which agreement was sanctioned and ratified by said Joseph Salb, and was as follows: Said Joseph Salb agreed to work for the defendants as an apprentice to learn the moulder's trade for the term of four years from the first of February, 1881, at and for the agreed price of $3.50 per week for the first year; $5, second year; $6.50, third year; and $8, fourth year,--this being an increase of $1.50 each week during the continuance of the four years; that plaintiff has neglected and refused to fulfill his said contract as aforesaid, to the damage of these defendants one hundred and fifty dollars, which damages defendants set up by way of counter-claim, and demand judgment for $150, and costs; that plaintiff has neglected to comply with the terms of contract, though requested to do so by the defendants.” The only witnesses who were sworn on the trial were the plaintiff and his son. The circuit court, on motion of the defendants, nonsuited the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered upon such nonsuit the plaintiff appeals to this court.

It is claimed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the evidence clearly shows that there was a contract by the son, which was ratified by the father, to work for the defendants for one year at the rate of five dollars per week, and that he quit without cause before the year was terminated, and for that reason the plaintiff was properly nonsuited. It is also claimed that if the son was working under the contract set up in the answer, then, although the contract was void unless reduced to writing, still the son, having entered upon the performance of it, could not recover for his labor if he quit without cause before the end of the four years. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the evidence clearly shows a hiring for one year at the rate of five dollars per week. It seems to us that the evidence of the son clearly tends to prove the allegation of the answer that there was a hiring for four years upon the terms mentioned in said answer, and not a hiring for a year. The evidence of the respondent, so far as it tends to show a hiring for any particular length of time, also tends to show that the hiring was for four years. He says: “I never made any contract or agreement with Campbell for the services of my son. My boy said he (Campbell) told him he had to stay four years; but I had not made an agreement in any shape. The boy said he would have to stay four years for learning the trade. It would take him four years to learn the trade; that is what the boy said.” Again, on cross-examination, he says: “I went and saw Campbell one Sunday. He paid what he agreed to the first year. The second year he paid one dollar more, making five dollars which I took. Campbell never told me it would take four years for him to learn the trade. He told the boy, and the boy told me, and I let the boy stay under that agreement.” To our minds the evidence tends strongly to...