Slauter v. Whitelock
| Decision Date | 31 May 1859 |
| Citation | 12 Ind. 296 |
| Parties | Slauter v. Whitelock |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Warren Court of Common Pleas.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
B. F Gregory and J. Harper, for appellant.
J. R M. Bryant, for appellee.
This was a suit for work and labor.
Answer--1. A general denial; 2. That defendant worked forty-three days on a special contract to work three months, which contract he abandoned, &c., whereby defendant suffered damage 30 dollars, &c.; 3. Set-off.
Trial by jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff for 10 dollars 70 cents.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff undertook to work for three months at 18 dollars per month; that he performed about forty-five days' work, when he was compelled to cease work, for a short time, because of an accident by which he was injured; that he was to receive his pay as he needed it that a few days after he was injured, he asked for a settlement with defendant, and demanded his pay. There was evidence that defendant refused to pay plaintiff unless he would complete his contract, and offered to take the work after he recovered. Plaintiff gave notice he would not work any more, and brought suit.
The witnesses for the defendant state that he did not refuse to pay until after the plaintiff had stated that he would not work another day, and that he had, at times, offered to pay the plaintiff more then he took.
Contradicting this, is the statement of Eli Angher, who was introduced, and in the language of the bill of exceptions, "by mistake, was not sworn, but stated and gave in his evidence without being sworn." He detailed the terms of the contract at 19 dollars per month; that he went with plaintiff to ask a settlement, &c.--in other matters agreeing with the other witnesses, except in the statement, "that Whitelock had told him, before they went to Slauter's that he would not work another day for Slauter; that Slauter would not pay him as he needed it."
There is no evidence, other than the above, from which the jury could infer that the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff, when requested, until after the plaintiff announced he would not complete the contract.
The evidence of the defendant, if legitimate, shows that he was damaged, by the failure of the plaintiff, in a sum greater than the amount that would have remained due the plaintiff after deducting payments. The plaintiff offered no evidence upon that point. That evidence of defendant consisted of general statements of witnesses, based upon the farming operations of the defendant, the lateness of the season, &c., as to the amount of such damages, without specifying in what they consisted, except upon one point, and that was, that defendant had sold and was to deliver his old corn (eleven hundred bushels) at 70 cents per bushel, but by the failure of the plaintiff, was prevented from doing so until fall, when corn had declined to 50 cents. If this was the proper mode of measuring the damage, it will be seen it would amount to much more than the whole contract price of the labor for the three months. The evidence was not objected to.
In Peters v. Whitney, 23 Barb. 24, which was an action for breach of a contract for work to be done on a farm, evidence of damages to the plaintiff's crop was deemed inadmissible, because of the defendant's leaving, &c., and it was held, in that case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial