Woodley v. Bond
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 66 N.C. 396 |
| Parties | CHARLES WOODLEY v. W. E. BOND Executor of A. W. MEBANE, Dec'd. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
An o verseer who contracts to carry on a farm for the owner at a fixed salary for the year, is entitled to recover for the value of his services, where he quits his employer before the expiration of the year, because this employer sells out the plantation, stock and crop, and directs the overseer to remain and carry out the contract with the purchaser of the plantation.
Civil action tried before Pool, Judge, at Fall Term, 1871, of Chowan Superior Court.
It was in evidence that the defendant's testator hired the plaintiff as overseer of his plantation, in Bertie connty, for the year 1870, for the sum of $625. On the 28th of July, 1870, the defendant's testator sold the plantation, crop and stock to Augustus Holley; that it was at the time of said sale agreed between Holley and the defendant's testator, that the plaintiff was to remain through the year upon the same terms, to occupy the same position; and by Holley that the sale was not intended to interfere in any way with the contract between him and the defendant's testator.
After the sale to Holley, the defendant's testator wrote to the plaintiff a letter reciting the above facts, which was received by the plaintiff on the 29th of July, 1870; that he declined to act upon this letter, and refused to let Mr. Holley have possession, saying that he would see Mr. Mebane (the defendant's testator) and find out what he meant.
On the 3d of August, 1870, the plaintiff saw the defendant's testator, and demanded the full contract price for his services for the year, and being refused he left the plantation.
The defendants counsel asked the Court to charge the jury, that there was no evidence that defendant's testator had discharged the plaintiff from his service; that the sale to Holley during the year, under the circumstances, did not justify the plaintiff in abandoning the contract, and having done so, he was not entitled to recover at all.
His Honor charged the jury that there was no evidence that defendant's testator had discharged the plaintiff, and that upon the sale being made during the year, the plaintiff had the right to put an end to the contract, and having done so, he was entitled to recover for the time he had served that proportion of the amount stipulated for the service for the year.
Defendant excepted verdict. Rule, &c., judgment and appeal.
No Co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Com'rs of Moore County v. Blue
...R. A. (N. S.) 354, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 272; Jones v. Shull, 153 N.C. 517, 69 S.E. 498; Greer v. Asheville, 114 N.C. 678, 19 S.E. 635; Woodley v. Bond, 66 N.C. 396. defendants, however, rely upon Brinson v. Commissioners, 173 N.C. 137, 91 S.E. 708, and Wikel v. Commissioners, 120 N.C. 451, 27 S......
-
Bd. Of Com'rs Of Moore County v. Sheriff
...354, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 272; Jones v. Shull, 153 N. C. 517, 69 S. E. 498; Greer v. Asheville, 114 N. C. 678, 19 S. E. 635; Woodley v. Bond, 66 N. C. 396. The defendants, however, rely upon Briuson v. Commissioners, 173 N. C. 137, 91 S. E. 708, and Wikel v. Commissioners, 120 N. C. 451, 27 S. ......
-
Jones v. Shull
...statute must be construed to be prospective in its operation, unless the contrary intention be clearly expressed therein. Woodley v. Bond, 66 N. C. 396; State v. Littlefield, 93 N. C. 614; Greer v. Asheville, 114 N. C. 678, 19 S. E. 635; Lowe v. Harris, 112 N. C. 472, 17 S. E. 539, 22 L. R.......
-
Jones v. Shull
... ... The statute must be construed to be ... prospective in its operation, unless the contrary intention ... be clearly expressed therein. Woodley v. Bond, 66 ... N.C. 396; State v. Littlefield, 93 N.C. 614; ... Greer v. Asheville, 114 N.C. 678, 19 S.E. 635; ... Lowe v. Harris, 112 N.C. 472, ... ...