Thomas v. Hatch
| Decision Date | 03 November 1881 |
| Citation | 10 N.W. 393,53 Wis. 296 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. HATCH. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from county court, Winnebago county.
Action for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant as a farm hand from May 3 to July 3, 1880, at $20 per month. The complaint alleges a special contract for the work at the above price per month, but for no specified time, and that the plaintiff left the service of the defendant by reason of sickness and inability to work. The answer alleges that the contract of hiring was for seven months, at the agreed price of $140; that the plaintiff left defendant's service at the end of two months without lawful excuse; that plaintiff's services were not reasonably worth to exceed $30; and that the defendant suffered certain specified damages by reason of the premises, for which he claims judgment. On the trial in the county court the jury found spcially that there was a contract between the parties that the plaintiff should work for the defendant for $20 per month; that no time of service was agreed upon; that the contract was made on Sunday; that the value of plaintiff's services was $20 per month; and that the defendant was damaged five dollars by reason of the plaintiff leaving his service when he did. After verdict the court permitted the plaimtiff to amend his complaint by alleging therein that the contract was made on Sunday, and that plaintiff's services to the defendant were worth $40. The court, therefore, rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the special verdict for $40 damages, besides costs. The defendant appeals from the judgment.Crozier & Tyrrell and Gabe Bouck, for respondent.
W. B. Felker, for for appellant.
We think the record fails to disclose any error. The jury found that the contract of hiring mentioned in the pleadings was made on Sunday. It was therefore void, and on proper pleadings the plaintiff would be entitled to recover for his services quantum meruit. The court allowed the complaint to be amended after verdict to agree with the proofs. It was clearly within the discretion of the court to permit the amendment. Rev. St. 756, § 2830. It does not change the claim substantially, for it still remains a claim for two months' services. It only goes to the rule of compensation therefor. Moreover, the defendant's answer tenders an issue quantum meruit--the same issue raised by the amendment. Neither is it a sufficient objection to the allowance of the amendment that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seifert v. Dirk
...are thereafter rendered, and the benefits thereof accepted, a recovery may nevertheless be had for their reasonable value (Thomas v. Hatch, 53 Wis. 296, 10 N. W. 393, where pleadings were allowed to be amended on the trial to change the cause of action from the express contract made on Sund......
-
Manning v. Sch. Dist. No. 6 of Ft. Atkinson
...for a recovery quantum meruit, none was proper without an amendment thereto. Throwbridge et al. v. Barrett, 30 Wis. 661;Thomas v. Hatch, 53 Wis. 296, 10 N. W. 393; Manitowoc Steam Boiler Works v. Manitowoc Glue Co., supra. (b) There was no proper evidence of the reasonable value of the plan......
-
Gist v. Johnson-Carey Co.
...under the circumstances rested in the sound discretion of the trial court, and we do not think the discretion was abused. Thomas v. Hatch, 53 Wis. 296, 10 N. W. 393;Sherry v. Madler, 123 Wis. 621, 101 N. W. 1095;Pearson v. Kelly, 122 Wis. 660, 100 N. W. 1064;Ainsworth v. Williams, 111 Wis. ......
-
King v. Graef
...of a recovery in the law. Pearson v. Kelly, 122 Wis. 660, 664, 100 N. W. 1064;Vinz v. Beatty, 61 Wis. 645, 21 N. W. 787;Thomas v. Hatch, 53 Wis. 296, 10 N. W. 393;Howe v. Ballard, 113 Wis. 375, 89 N. W. 136;Brown v. Gates, 120 Wis. 349, 97 N. W. 221, 98 N. W. 205. Neither can a contract mad......