William Nutt, Executor of Alexander Hunter, Deceased Plaintiff In Error v. Philip Minor

• Decision Date: 01 December 1855
• Citation: 15 L.Ed. 378,18 How. 286,59 U.S. 286
• Parties: WILLIAM D. NUTT, EXECUTOR OF ALEXANDER HUNTER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. PHILIP H. MINOR
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

59 U.S. 286

18 How. 286

15 L.Ed. 378

WILLIAM D. NUTT, EXECUTOR OF ALEXANDER HUNTER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. PHILIP H. MINOR.

December Term, 1855

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Davis and Mr. Bradley, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Badger and Mr. Lawrence, for the defendant.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

Minor sued Nutt as executor of Alexander Hunter, and sought to recover on a quantum meruit for services rendered as clerk for Hunter in the marshal's office for fourteen and a half years.

The defence is, that Minor entered on the service under a special agreement to receive four hundred dollars a year.

The bill of exceptions states, that 'on the trial of this cause, the plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, gave evidence tending to prove that he had rendered the services mentioned in the declaration, during the period therein stated, and that the said services were faithful, valuable, and unremitting, during all the time aforesaid; and he further gave evidence by Daniel Minor, a competent witness, that the engagement under which the plaintiff commenced to serve as such clerk as aforesaid to the deceased, Hunter, was made verbally in the presence of the witness; that the witness was a surety in the official bond of the deceased, as marshal for the District of Columbia; that plaintiff is the brother of witness; that witness was the deputy marshal of Alexandria county from 1806 or 1807, down to 1826; and that the plaintiff was very familiar with the duties of clerk in the marshal's office, and that the said Hunter was wholly ignorant of the duties of said office; that the witness was desirous of having plaintiff employed as such clerk by said Hunter, and, with the plaintiff, went to the marshal's office and there met the said Hunter, and in said office, they there being present, they had a conversation about the employment of the plaintiff and the terms thereof; that witness told the said Hunter that he could find nobody who would suit the place better than the plaintiff; that Hunter said he did not know any thing about the emoluments of the office, or the value of the plaintiff's services, but he would be willing to give him $250 per annum; that witness said that was out of the question, that plaintiff could not pay his board with it; the witness then said he would give $150, if Hunter would give $250, making the salary $400 for the first year; that said Hunter said he was willing to do that; that plaintiff was dissatisfied; that witness, then and there continuing the conversation, in the presence of the said Hunter, and speaking in the same tone as in the previous part of the conversation, and standing near to the said Hunter as before, told the plaintiff that he must try and get along with the $400 for the first year, and that afterwards, when Hunter should ascertain the value of the services, he would pay him...