Schaffner v. The Estate of John Schaffner

• Decision Date: 06 May 1916
• Docket Number: 20,199
• Citation: 157 P. 402,98 Kan. 167
• Parties: J. J. SCHAFFNER, Appellee, v. THE ESTATE OF JOHN SCHAFFNER et al., Appellants
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

157 P. 402

98 Kan. 167

J. J. SCHAFFNER, Appellee, v. THE ESTATE OF JOHN SCHAFFNER et al., Appellants

No. 20,199

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 6, 1916

Decided, January, 1916.

Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 1; THOMAS C WILSON, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

MASTER AND SERVANT--Action for Wages--Limitation of Actions. The rule announced in the case of Grisham v. Lee, 61 Kan. 533, 60 P. 312, that where there is a single hiring and the term of service and time when compensation is due are not fixed, the hiring is continuous and the statute of limitations does not begin to run against a claim for compensation until the service terminates, approved and applied.

John W. Adams, George W. Adams, and George L. Skidmore, all of Wichita, for the appellants.

S. B. Amidon, and Jean Madalene, both of Wichita, for the appellee.

OPINION

BURCH, J.:

The plaintiff recovered judgment on a claim against his father's estate, which the probate court had rejected. The substantial ground of the appeal is that action for compensation for six of the nine years service for which the claimant recovered was barred by the statute of limitations.

This is a second appeal. The nature of the appellee's claim is stated in the opinion in the case of Schaffner v. Schaffner, 92 Kan. 570, 141 P. 251. The proof was to the following effect: The appellee's father was an invalid whose afflictions prevented him from farming the land on which he lived and which was mortgaged. The appellee had employment as a farm hand away from home. His father asked a neighbor to interview the appellee and ascertain if appellee would not come home and do the farming, stating that he was not able to do the farming and that he would pay appellee for his work. His father's desire was communicated to the appellee, who came home, put the farm in good condition, improved it and successfully farmed it until his father's death, which occurred nine years after he took charge. Before returning home appellee was receiving wages at the rate of $ 30 per month and his father said he would pay the appellee $ 30 as long as he worked. In the nine years the appellee operated the farm he received no compensation for his services. Besides conducting his father's farm he conducted others which he rented.

The appellants cite the cases holding that the statute of limitations begins to run at the end of each month when payment of wages is to be made at the end of each month. In this instance there was no express agreement that payment should be made at the end of each month. The plaintiff was not employed simply in the capacity of a farm hand to work from month to month. He came home to do the farming which his father was not able to do. He was to be paid the same sum he was receiving per month, not period by period, but as long as he worked. Consequently the promise was a continuing promise to pay kept alive by...