Young v. Tilley

• Decision Date: 16 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 1841.,1841.
• Parties: YOUNG v. TILLEY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

190 S.W. 95

YOUNG v. TILLEY.

No. 1841.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 16, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

Action by James H. Young against James H. Tilley. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mozley & Woody, of Bloomfield, for appellant.

STURGIS, J.

The plaintiff's petition is in two counts, on both of which he recovered, and defendant appeals. Plaintiff's evidence, corroborated by that of Helen Poe, shows the following facts: That plaintiff and defendant both lived at Advance, in Stoddard county. That defendant was engaged in the timber business, having a contract to cut into logs and haul out same the timber on a tract of swamp land some seven or eight miles from this town. That defendant made a contract with plaintiff by which plaintiff was to move his family and necessary household effects to this land and engage in cutting the timber into logs at $1 per thousand feet, lumber measure. Defendant also agreed to furnish plaintiff a suitable tent to live in and run as a boarding and lodging house and agreed to furnish him not less than five boarders at $4 per week — this because defendant had to employ teamsters and other help and wanted a place for them to board and lodge. That defendant also agreed that he would furnish plaintiff work for six weeks to two months, and of course the boarding house would run that long. That defendant would move plaintiff's household effects to the timber and move same back to town when the job was done, free of charge. That defendant did move plaintiff's effects to the timber, but refused to move same back, and plaintiff had to employ others to do so at an expense of $12. That plaintiff was furnished work for less than 30 days when defendant made him quit. That he remained idle for the balance of the time, though prepared and willing to continue the work of cutting the timber. That defendant never furnished plaintiff with but one regular boarder and another or two for short intervals.

The first count of plaintiff's petition is for the recovery of $12, the expense of plaintiff in having his household effects moved from the timber back to town, and a balance of $38.10 due him on timber cut for defendant. The jury allowed plaintiff these items, and, while disputed by defendant, the question was one for the jury and no error is pointed out affecting the trial on this issue.

The second count is for loss of profits to plaintiff by reason of not being allowed to work in cutting timber for the full time contracted for and for failure of defendant to furnish him boarders as agreed. The plaintiff testified that he lost 30 days' time when the weather and other conditions were suitable and when he was ready and willing to go on with his work; that he could and would have made $5 per day if allowed to work at the rate he was to be paid. He also testified that he could and would have made a profit of $1.50 per week on each boarder paying him $4 per week for board. This latter profit really means pay for the labor of his wife and stepdaughter living with him for doing the cooking and household work,...