Sipley v. Stickney

• Decision Date: 02 January 1906
• Citation: 76 N.E. 226,190 Mass. 43
• Parties: SIPLEY v. STICKNEY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

190 Mass. 43

76 N.E. 226

SIPLEY v. STICKNEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

January 2, 1906

COUNSEL

A. Chalkley Collins, for plaintiff.

Hurlburt Jones & Cabot and Brooks & Hamilton, for defendant.

OPINION

LORING J.

This case comes before us on exceptions to the charge to the jury in an action of contract in which the plaintiff had a verdict. The defendant is a lawyer, residing and practicing in the city of New York. From 1900 to 1902 he owned a farm of some 400 acres in Sheffield, Mass., on which he had a herd of from 25 to 30 milch cows, 17 heifers and 2 bulls. He was at the farm but little, and employed the plaintiff in July 1900, to take charge of it for him. The plaintiff resigned his position in July, 1902, but stayed on until October 10th apparently to accommodate the defendant, who could not get another farmer at the time. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover $193.73, a balance due him for wages for August, September, and the 10 days in October on which he worked, amounting to $97.12, together with 61 items of cash paid out in August and September, amounting to $267.51, after crediting the defendant with 9 items of cash received during August and September for the products of the farm, amounting to $170.90. All the items, with the exception of the three for wages, were agreed to be correct; that is to say, the defendant admitted that he owed the plaintiff $96.61, the balance of cash expended by the plaintiff, but contested his liability for the wages amounting to $97.12. The defendant set up in defense to the claim for the wages that the plaintiff in his monthly accounts had intentionally misstated the debts incurred in running the farm, to deceive the defendant.

The presiding judge charged the jury that 'the plaintiff in undertaking to manage the farm of the defendant was bound to act with diligence, integrity, and skill. That is a general obligation. It is the obligation of any one who undertakes any employment. It is the same in other concerns, other business, in other employment as it was in this. It is a general obligation on the part of any person who undertakes an employment to act with diligence, integrity, and skill. It was the undertaking, it was the duty of Sipley, in his dealings with the defendant, Stickney, to so act, and it is upon the plaintiff in this case to satisfy you that he did so act. The burden of proof is upon him, to entitle him to prevail in this action, to satisfy you that he did act in his dealings with Mr. Stickney, the defendant, with diligence, integrity, and skill, and to the extent that he failed in either or all of the three respects which I have enumerated, in so far as he failed in either one or more of those respects and injury resulted to Mr. Stickney, the defendant in this case, there is a right to use that injury in reduction of this claim, and, if such injuries are sufficient to extinguish the claim, then your verdict is for the defendant in this case.' To this the defendant excepted, 'claiming that, unless the plaintiff satisfied the jury that the plaintiff rendered his services with fidelity, defendant was entitled to a verdict without regard to the question whether or not damage resulted from the plaintiff's failure to perform.' The judge also instructed the jury: 'If you find that the plaintiff, Sipley, was bound to render true and accurate accounts by reason of any arrangement between the parties of the farming business in his hands, of the payments and receipts, and if you find upon the evidence that there was failure to render such accounts, and especially if you find that he deceived the defendant as to the condition of the accounts, that fact will be a sufficient ground in law for your refusal to allow him any compensation, if you find that such failure or such deception injured the defendant to an extent sufficient to extinguish his claim.' To this the defendant excepted, 'claiming that it was immaterial whether or not damage resulted from the failure of the plaintiff to render true accounts; but that, if plaintiff rendered accounts which were not true or failed to render accounts, he had failed to perform his contract and was not entitled to recover.' There were other instructions and other issues and other exceptions, but the only exceptions insisted upon at the argument are those above stated.

The evidence which gave rise to the parts of the judge's charge now attacked was in substance this: The result of the conduct of the farm had been disappointing in the crops raised, in the deterioration of the stock, and particularly in the amount of money paid out. It appeared that the plaintiff rendered accounts to the defendant each month. The defendant testified that in the first winter (1900-01) he learned of a bill for $120 that the plaintiff had not paid; that the next time he saw the plaintiff he told him what had happened, and that it must not happen again; that he must pay cash as he went, and that he could not have him running up bills for him, the defendant, to pay; that shortly after the time when he accepted the plaintiff's resignation (which was in July, 1902) he was at the farm, and the plaintiff produced a grain bill from Manvel for $79.02, the last item on it being April 18, 1902; that the statements rendered by the plaintiff to him from time to time showed payments to Manvel for grain, and that he supposed that the items on the statements paid for all the grain bought, while in fact he kept back the bulk of the account. Then a week later he produced a bill for $180 for supplies bought before July; and in this connection also he had been putting in his monthly statements payments which the defendant supposed covered all expenses. Later, after the plaintiff had gone, he found another instance in a bill for hardware, amounting to $150.10.

Under these instructions the jury were allowed to find a verdict for the plaintiff, although he had intentionally deceived the defendant as to the expenses incurred by him in running the farm.

...