Whittingslow v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 07 January 1921 |
| Parties | WHITTINGSLOW v. THOMAS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; W. P. Hall, Judge.
Action by William H. Whittingslow against George S. Thomas and trustees, resulting in verdicts for plaintiff on the two counts of his declaration, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Arthur L. Woodman, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Paul D. Turner and Friedman & Atherton, all of Boston, for defendant.
DE COURCY, J.
The jury found for the plaintiff on both counts of his declaration; the first being for work and labor done, and the second for money had and received. The second is not material to these exceptions, as admittedly the plaintiff is entitled to judgment thereon. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff worked for the defendant, at Hamilton, Mass. for about two years preceding the summer of 1914 when he returned to England. He testified that while both parties were in England in September, 1914, he offered to come back for $50 a month, board and room, and that Thomas said that was all right; and that about October first he came to the United States and worked for the defendant. The defendant denied making any such contract.
There was further evidence to show that the plaintiff was a professional dog breeder and trainer; that on his arrival he went to work for the defendant at his dog kennels in Hamilton, and received $50 per month wages for the months of October, November and December, 1914. The first count of the declaration is for work and labor performed at the rate of $50 per month, from January 1, 1915, to June 1, 1916. For these months the plaintiff was not paid; and when he was voluntarily leaving the employ of the defendant, they had an accounting together, and $850 was found to be due.
The record does not contain all the evidence in the case. At its close the defendant requested the trial judge to rule:
‘That the contract declared on in the first count of the plaintiff's declaration and as testified to is void, being within the operation of the contract labor laws of the United States (Act February 26, 1885, c. 164, § 2, 23 U. S. Sts. at Large 332, Act February 5, 1917, c. 29, § 5, 39 U. S. Sts. at Large 875 [U. S. Comp. St. § 4245, U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 4289 1/4 c]).’
The only question before us is raised by the exception to the judge's refusal to give this ruling.
If the defendant, after availing himself of the plaintiff's services for seventeen months, desired to avoid paying for them on the ground that they were performed under a contract that was illegal by force of the federal Contract Labor Law, it was necessary for him to set up that defense in his answer. R. L. c. 173, § 27; Cassidy v. Farrell, 109 Mass. 397;Suit v. Woodhall, 116 Mass. 547;O'Brien v. Shea, 208 Mass. 528, and cases cited at page 535, 95 N. E. 99, at page 101, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1030. Failing so to plead, he could not as of right offer evidence of such illegality, or avail himself of it when disclosed in the plaintiff's testimony. See Cardoze v. Smith, 113 Mass. 250, 252. It was said in O'Brien v. Shea, supra:
‘The court will recognize no absolute duty to interfere and of its own mere motion to sustain a defense not set up by the party, and generally will not so interfere, unless, first, the plaintiff's declaration shows that he relies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nowell v. Equitable Trust Co.
...Railway, 194 Mass. 228, 80 N. E. 232;O'Brien v. Shea, 208 Mass. 528, 534-536, 95 N. E. 99, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1030;Whittingslow v. Thomas, 237 Mass. 103, 129 N. E. 386;Coughlin v. Royal Indemnity Co., 244 Mass. 317, 138 N. E. 395;Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 191, 199, 25 L. Ed. 319;R......
-
Cadillac Auto. Co. of Boston v. Engeian
...95 N.E. 99. Silver v. Graves, 210 Mass. 26, 31, 95 N.E. 948. Raymond v. Phipps, 215 Mass. 559, 561, 102 N.E. 905. Whittingslow v. Thomas, 237 Mass. 103, 104, 129 N.E. 386. Morello v. Levakis, 293 Mass. 450, 451, 200 N.E. 271. Smith v. Miles, 296 Mass. 126, 129, 5 N.E.2d 12. Adamsky v. Mende......
-
Morello v. Levakis
...apprise the plaintiff in advance of trial of the issues which he intends to raise by properly pleading his defences. Whittingslow v. Thomas, 237 Mass. 103, 129 N.E. 386;Bursaw v. Pederson, 284 Mass. 471, 479, 188 N.E. 233. A case like this is to be distinguished from Reuter v. Ballard, 267 ......
-
Nussenbaum v. Chambers & Chambers, Inc.
...so fundamental that the judge was bound to take cognizance of its violation, although the defence was not pleaded (see Whittingslow v. Thomas, 237 Mass. 103, 129 N.E. 386;Nowell v. Equitable Trust Co., 249 Mass. 585, 595, 596, 144 N.E. 749;Morello v. Levakis, 293 Mass. 450, 451, 452, 200 N.......