Page images
PDF
EPUB

license authorizing him to so sell. These averments are necessary to notify the defendant of the cause and nature of the execution against him, and to enable him to prepare for his defense and to plead the judgment in bar of a second prosecution.

Being informed by the indictment of the place where the offense is alleged to have been committed, he will be bound to take notice of the law of that place, and it will not be necessary to allege that the act is in force in that place on the facts which show that it is in force. These may be proved on the trial, not as constituent parts of the offense, but as showing that the "local option law" was in force when the acts alleged were committed, and is the law by which he is to be tried.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proper proceedings.

[blocks in formation]

Where a contract is entire and has been only partially fulfilled, the party in fault may nevertheless recover from the other party for the actual benefit received and retained by the other party, less the damages sustained by the other party by reason of the partial non-fulfillment of the contract; and this may be done in all cases where the other party has received benefit from this partial fulfillment of the contract, whether he has so received the same and retained it from choice or from the necessities of the case. Thus where D hired B to work for him for seven months at $15 per month, and B worked for D only fifty-nine days and then quit without any reasonable excuse therefor: Held, that B may nevertheless recover from D for what the work was reasonably worth, less any damage that D may have sustained by reason of the partial non-fulfillment of the contract.

ERROR from Montgomery county:

Ben. M. Armstrong, for plaintiff in error; George Chandler, for defendant in error.

VALENTINE, J., delivered the opinion of the

court:

This action was commenced in a justice's court by Jeremiah Baker against Solomon Duncan, to recover $48,40 which he claimed to be due for 59 days' work. Judgment was rendered in the justice's court in favor of Baker for $19.90 and costs, and Duncan then appealed to the district court. In the district court judgment was again rendered in favor of Baker for $19.90 and costs and Duncan then brought the case to this court for review.

It would seem from the evidence in the case that Duncan hired Baker to work for him for seven

months at $15 per month; that Baker under the contract worked for him for only 59 days and then quit, and (as Duncan claims) without any reasonable excuse therefor; that, during the time that Baker worked for Duncan, Duncan paid Baker $9.60 on his work, and afterwards refused to pay him anything more. Duncan claims that Baker is not entitled to recover anything for his work. And this he does upon the ground that the contract under which Baker did the work was an entire contract, that under such contract there can be no apportionment, and therefore, that, as Baker quit work before the time for him to do so under the contract had arrived, and without any reasonable excuse therefor, he cannot now recover for what work he actually did under the contract.

There are many authorities which sustain this claim of the plaintiff in error, Duncan. Indeed nearly all the older authorities do; but we think a majority of the later and better reasoned cases sustain the contrary doctrine.

Mr. Parsons in his work on Contracts, speaking of entire contracts, says: "So, too, if one party without the fault of the other fails to perform his side of the contract in such a manner as to enable him to sue upon it. still if the other party have derived a benefit from the part performed it would be unjust to allow him to retain that without paying anything. The law therefore generally implies a promise on his part to pay such a remuneration as the benefit conferred upon him is reasonably worth; and to recover that quantum of remuneration an action of indebitatus assumpsit is maintaiuable." 2 Pars. Cont. 6th. Ed. 523. Many authorities may be found to sustain the foregoing proposition of Mr. Parsons. And authorities may be found to sustain it in all its various aspects. Thus, authorities may be found to sustain it with reference to contracts of sale, contracts to do some specific labor upon real estate as building or repairing houses &c., contracts to do some particular labor upon personal property as making or repairing specific articles of personal property, and contracts for personal services. The leading case which sustains the foregoing proposition with reference to contracts for personal services is the case of Britton v. Turner, 6 N H. 481. That was an action of indebitatus assumpsit with a quantum meruit count for work and labor performed. The plaintiff had contracted to work for the defendant for one year for the sum of one hundred dollars, but he left the defendant's employment after working for him for only about nine months without the consent of the defendant

and without good cause. It was held however that he might recover on the quantum meruit count notwithstanding his failure and refusal to work the full time that he had agreed to do. There are other cases directly applicable to the present case, to some of which we shall hereafter refer.

Mr. Field, in his work on Damages, says that "the doctrine now generally recognized in case of part performance of a contract for personal service is, that if the employer accepts the benefit of what has been done, whether voluntarily or from the necessity of the case, the employee may recover according to the contract price, for what has been done;

or where he is to receive a fixed sum for the whole work, then in the proportion which the work done bears to the whole work; or, where there is no price fixed then upon a quantum meruit, from which, however, there must be deducted whatever damages may have resulted to the employer from the failure to fully perform the contract by the employee." Field on Damages section 326. Mr. Field also after commenting upon the case of Britton v. Turner ante, and speaking of the argument therein contained as being an able one, then says, that "the tendency of the decisions seems to be in harmony with the views thus ably set forth." Section 332. He further says, "The doctrine of Britton v. Turner is also now fully or partially recognized in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maine, Texas, Tennessee, Missouri, New York, and other states. Section 334. "And the doctrine, in view of its manifest justice, is likely to grow in favor until it becomes universally recognized." Section 335.

Mr. Parsons also says, "The case of Britton v. Turner, 6 N. H. 481, resists the whole doctrine of these cases (previously cited by him) and permits the servant to recover on a quantum meruit. His right to recover is carefully guarded in this case by principles which seem to protect the master from all wrong, and to require of him only such payment as is justly due for benefits received and retained, and after all reduction for any damage he may have sustained from the breach of the contract. So guarded, it might seem that the principles of this case are better adapted to do adequate justice to both parties, and wrong to neither than those of the numerous cases which rest upon the somewhat technical rule of the entirety of the contract." 2 Parsons on Cont. 6th ed. 38, 39. The following cases are also in point: Pixler v. Nichols, 8 Iowa, 106; McClay v. Hedges, 18 Iowa. 66; McAfferty y. Hale, 24 Iowa, 356; Byerlee v. Mendel, 39 Iowa, 382; Wolf v. Gerr, 43 Iowa, 339.

In the case of McClay v. Hedges ante, Judge Dillon, who delivered the opinion of the court, uses the following language: "This question was settled in this state by the case of Pixler v. Nichols, 8 Iowa, 166, which distinctly recognized and expressly foliowed the case of Britton v. Turner, 6 N. H. 481. That celebrated case has been criticised, doubted and denied to be sound. It is frequently said to be good equity, but bad law. Yet its principles have been gradually winning their way into professional and judicial favor. It is bottomed on justice and is right upon principle, however it may be upon the technical and more illiberal rules of the common law, as found in the older cases." 18 Iowa, 68. See also Hillyard v. Crabtree, 11 Texas, 264; Carroll v. Welsh, 26 Texas, 147, 149; Hollis v. Chapman, 36 Texas 1, 5. In the last case cited the court uses the following language: "But this court, by a succession of decisions, has settled the question of the apportionability of contracts and we are inclined to follow these decisions in this case." (Citing the above and other cases.) In the last case the court says, "The doctrine of the earlier decisions, to the effect that where the contract in cases like the present is entire, the performance by the employee is a condition precedent,

and he has no remedy until he has fully performed his part, is not now the recognized doctrine of the courts." See also Lamb v. Brolaski, 38 Mo. 51, 53; Ryan v. Dayton, 25 Conn. 188; Epperly v. Bailey, 3 Ind. 73; see also the numerous cases cited by Mr. Field in his work on Damages, section 334, note 24; and also cases cited in 3 U. S. Digest, first series, page 521, No. 2,390.

The weight of authority at the present time we think is unquestionably against the doctrine that where a contract is entire and consequently not apportionable, and has been only partially performed, the failing party is not entitled to recover or receive anything for what he has actually done. It will perhaps be admitted that such doctrine has been overturned with respect to all contracts except those for personal services; and if so, then there is not much of the doctrine left. But if the doctrine is to be abandoned with reference to all contracts except those for personal services, then why not abandon the doctrine altogether? The reason usually given for not wholly abandoning the doctrine is, that the employer in contracts for personal services has no choice, except to accept, receive and retain the services already performed, while in other contracts he may refuse to accept or may return the proceeds of the partially performed contract if he chooses. But this is not always nor even generally true with respect to other contracts. Suppose a miller purchase a thousand bushels of wheat for a thousand dollars, the wheat to be delivered within one month; he receives the wheat as it is delivered and grinds it into flour; when the vendor has delivered 500 bushels thereof he refuses to deliver any more; what choice has the miller then except to retain what he has already received? This kind of supposition will also apply to the purchase and sale of all other kinds of articles where the purchaser on receiving them changes their character or sells them so that he cannot return them. Or suppose that an owner of real estate employs a man to build or repair some structure thereon for a gross but definite sum, the owner of the real estate to furnish the materials or a portion thereof in case of building, and either party to furnish them in case of reparing, and the job is only half fiuished, what choice has the owner of the real estate with reference to retaining or returning the proceeds of the workman's labor? This kind of supposition will also apply to all kinds of work done on real estate, and will often apply to work done on personal property. Of course in all cases where the employer can refuse to accept the work, and does refuse to accept it, or returns it, he is not bound to pay for it, unless it exactly corresponds with the contract. But where he receives is and retains it, whether he retains it from choice or from necessity, he is bound to pay for the same what it is reasonably worth, less any damage that he may sustain by reason of the partial non-fulfillment of the contract. Of course he is not bound to pay anything unless the work is worth something, unless he receives or may receive some actual benefit therefrom; and where he receives or may receive some actual benefit therefrom, he is bound to pay for such benefit, and only for such

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1. WHERE ONE IN ACTUAL POSSESSION of a part of a tract of land, under color of title to the whole tract, has been turned out of such actual possession and restitution made to the true owner under a judgment of forcible entry and detainer, the effect of such restitution is to restore the possession of the owner from the time of such forcible entry, and the possession of the disseizor will become the possession of such owner for the entire period during which such forcible possession was held by the adverse occupant.

2. A JUDGMENT IN SUCH ACTION OF FORCIBLE ENTRY and detainer is final and conclusive against the adverse occupant that the entry of such occupant was upon the actual possession of the true owner: that such entry was forcible, and that his holding possession was unlawful, and when restitution it made of the part so actually held, the constructive possession which follows claim and color of the unoccupied portion of the tract, is thereby extinguished.

3. EVIDENCE OF PARTY TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF TITLE PAPERS WHERE GRANTOR IS DEAD.-In an action of ejectment against a party holding adverse to the title of the true owner, the plaintiff is a competent witness to prove the execution and genuineness of the deed to himself, although his grantor may be dead at the time of the trial. Such conveyance is not the contract or cause of action at issue and on trial. The cause of action at issue and on trial in such case is the wrongful withholding of lands of plaintiff. Both parties to that cause are living, and the test of competency is this cause of action this at issue and on trial, and not the facts to which either party may be called to testify.

Botsford & Williams for the plaintiff; Hale, & Eads, and Waters, & Winslow, for the defendant. HOUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the court; This was an action of ejectment, instituted March 1st, 1872, to recover possession of a part of the S. E. one-fourth of sec. 15, T. 55, R. 23, the same being military bounty land, in the county of Carroll. The cause was tried at the December term, 1875. The defendant relied upon adverse possession, under color of title for the period of two years, under the special limitation law appli

cable to such lands. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant has appealed.

It appears from the record that the plaintiff and the defendant each had actual possession in April, 1869, of a part of the tract in controversy; the plaintiff of a strip on the west side of said tract, containing about eight acres, and the defendant of a strip on the east side thereof, containing about twelve acres. The intervening portion of the tract remained unoccupied until the summer of 1871, when the defendant took actual possession of a part, and subsequently of the whole tract. On the 22d day of June, 1871, the plaintiff brought an action of forcible entry and detainer against the defendant for the twelve acres occupied by him, and recovered judgment therefor, which judgment was affirmed by this court at its May term, 1875. A writ of restitution was issued on this judgment, and the plaintiff was restored to the possession of said twelve acres, on the 11th day of November, 1875.

The only possession claimed by the defendant, of the land lying between the eight acres on the west, and the twelve acres on the east, prior to the summer of 1871, was a constructive possession thereof, by reason of his alleged occupation of the twelve acres, under color of title, before the plaintiff or any one for him entered upon the western border of the tract. But the verdict of the jury, in the forcible entry and detainer case, is conclusive of the fact that the plaintiff entered upon the western border of the tract before the defendant entered upon the eastern border, and that the latter's entry was a forcible intrusion upon the plaintiff's premises; and when restitution was made under the judgment in that case, the statu quo was restored, and the defendant's possession of the twelve acres became, from the beginning, the possession of the plaintiff, and all constructive possession arising out of the actual possession, under color of title, was thereby extinguished. Furgeson v. Bartholemew, 67 Mo. --; 17 Am. Law Reg., N. S. 495. The only adverse possession, therefore, upon which de. fendant could rely, was the possession taken by him in the summer of 1871, and that was less than two years before the institution of the present suit.

As to the deed from Horton to plaintiff, we are of opinion that the plaintiff was a competent witness to prove that the grantor's name was in the body of the deed, and in the certificate of acknowledgment, at the time such certificate was given by the justice, though Horton, the grantor, was dead.

The deed from Horton to the plaintiff was not the contract or cause of action in issue and on trial. The cause of action in issue and on trial, was the alleged unlawful withholding, by the defendant, of the possession of certain lands from the plaintiff, and both of the parties to this controversy are living. The case does not come, therefore, within the letter of the statute; nor does it come within the reason of the statute, as the representatives of Horton are not parties to this suit, and can not be affected by the result thereof. The validity of the deed from Horton to the plaintiff arises incidentally, and is not directly and necessarily involved in

the issue to be tried. "By the words 'contract or cause of action in issue and on trial,' as used in the statute, the legislature evidently intended such contract or cause of action as was to be enforced by the proceeding; that in regard to which an issue was to be formed and a trial had, where the rights of the parties to the contract or cause of action would be determined by the result." Manufacturers Bank v. Scofield, 39 Vt. 590-594. In Downs v. Belden, 46 Vt. 674, it was held that where A sued B in trover for the conversion of property which A bought of C, who was dead, A was a competent witness in his own behalf, as to his contract of purchase with C. In Granger v. Barrett, 98 Mass. 302, speaking of the cases in which a party may be a witness under a statute like ours, the court said: "His competency must be determined in advance by the nature of the controversy, and the questions in issue. If upon that test he is admitted as a witness in the case, his testimony is competent for all purposes, although it may relate to transactions with a person since deceased, which prove to be involved in, or to affect the matter in dispute."

The case of Looker v. Davis, 47 Mo. 141, is to the same effect. We think the rule enunciated in these cases the correct one. It follows that the plaintiff was a competent witness. In Poe v. Domec, 54 Mo, 119; and Johnson v. Quarles, 46 Mo. 423, the transactions in reference to which testimony was excluded, on the ground that one of the parties thereto was dead, were brought directly in issue by the pleadings. In Angell v. Hester, 64 Mo. 142, a promissory note, made by the defendant, was the contract in issue and on trial, and the defendant was offered to vary his liability thereunder by reason of a transaction had with the other party to said contract, who was dead. We held that he was properly excluded.

We see no error in the record, and the judgment will be afirmed. All concur.

NOTE.-In the previous action in this court, Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 62, the court, at defendant's request, gave three declarations of law, which are cited in full in Judge Wagner's opinion, in the case on appeal, which made it necessary, before there could be a verdict for complainant, for the court to find that complainant was in the actual visible possession of the land claimed, and that at the time defendant entered, complainant had entered upon the land, that defendant entered upon that possession of the complainant and turned him out, and that such entry was unlawful and wrongful. This matter of prior possession by the respondent in the case at bar on the 26th of April, 1869, having thus been solemnly adjudged in that cause by a competent court upon its merits, it was conclusively settled as between the parties to that action, and the record, judgment and proceedings therein were admissible in the second suit, for the purpose of showing such adjudication. McKnight v. Taylor, 1 Mo 282; Offutt v. John, 8 Mo. 124; Harvie v. Turner, 46 Mo. 444; Ridgely v. Stillwell, 27 Mo. 128; Strong v. Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 295; Wood v. Ensel, 63 Mo. 194; 2 Wharton Ev., § 758, and cases cited. And the bill of exceptions, preserved by appellant in that cause, was admissible to show what facts were in issue and decided. Wharton Ev., § 835, and cases cited. Hickerson v. City of Mexico, 58 Mo. 64.

In Mitchell v. Davis, 23 Cal. 381, the record of proceedings in a forcible entry case, was held admissible to prove the extent and right of plaintiff's possession, and that defendant was estopped from denying the same. In Stean v. Anderson, in trespass, 4 Harr. (Del.) 215, the chief justice, for the court, declares the law to be, that a verdict and judgment in a former action of trespass between the same parties were final and conclusive: 1st, that such trespass was committed by the defendant; and 24, that plaintiff was in the actual possession of the land, where and at the time when the trespass was committed. 2 Waterman on Trespass, § 1122, p. 568. In Harvie v. Turner, 46 Mo. 444-8, in a forcible entry case, plaintiff, Harvie, having given evidence tending to prove peaceable possession, by himself, in the premises, defendant, Turner, offered in evidence the record of the proceedings and judgment in a prior forcible entry and detainer suit. wherein he was plaintiff, and one Howe was defendant, for the purpose of showing that the point in issue in the pending suit had been adjudicated, and in connection with the record offered to prove that Howe entered and took possession under Harvie's anthority and as his tenant, that the action was for the same premises, and that the verdict and judgment therein were rendered upon the same facts and issues, that were involved in the present action. It was held that the record was admissible, and determined that Turner, as a matter of fact within the three years next prior to the institution of that suit, was in peaceable possession of the cabin enclosure, and that his possession was unlawfully invaded by Howe. "These facts can not be litigated over again in a forcible entry and detainer suit between the same parties, altuough the subsequent suit may embrace premises not included in the first, and to that extent the identity between the two is perfect and indisputable. It would hardly be claimed that Howe could escape the consequences of the first judgmeut by a mere enlargement of the claim, sueing for all that was em braced in the original litigation and something more. If that could be done, judg ents could be rendered of no effect, by mere artifice and subtlety." This case is upon "all fours" with the present one, and the fact that the form of the present action was different from the former one, is immaterial. 2 Wharton Ev., § 779, and cases cited, The weight of American authority sustains the principle that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction directly upon a particular point is, between the parties, conclusive in relation to such point, though the purpose of the suits be different. Transportation Co. v. Traube, 59 Mo. 362; Spencer v. Dearth, 43 Vt. 98; White v. Coatsworth, 6 N. Y. 138; Freeman on Judgments, § 258, and cases there cited.

2. As to the competency of the respondent as a witness in this case, his grantor being dead.

By the general law respondent was competent, unless he came within the limits of the proviso contained in the Missouri statute: "Provided that in actions where one of the original parties to the contract or cause of action in issue and on trial is dead, or is shown to the court to be insane, the other party shall not be admitted to testify in his own favor." 2 Wag. Stat. p. 1372, § 1. By the "contract in issue" is meant the contract in issue and on trial. Morse v. Low, 44 Vt. 561. And by these words, "contract or cause of action in issue," the legislature evidently intended such contract or cause of action as was to be enforced by the proceeding; that in regard to which an issue was to be formed and a trial had, where the rights of the parties to the contract or cause of action would be determined by the result. Manf. Bank v. Schofield, 39 Vt. 594.

In this case there was no contract in issue and on trial. The cause of action in issue and on trial was the

right to the possession between Horton's grantee and an intruder, in no way connected with him, not in privity, either in law, blood or estate, but holding and claiming in hostility to the title he conveyed by his deed. It was an action of ejectment for recovery of possession of land of respondent, upon which he wrongfully withheld. That was the "cause of action at issue and on trial," and both parties to this cause were living; and the test of competency was the cause of action thus at issue and on trial, and not the facts to which either party might be called to testify. Looker v. Davis, 47 Mo. 145; Angell v. Hester, 64 Mo. 152, and cases there cited. The doctrine contended for by appellant in this case was that whenever a party to an action against a stranger or wrong doer derives any right or title to the thing in controversy by contract, and his immediate or remote grantor is dead, he then and thereby becomes disqualified to testify as a witness to any fact upon which his title is based, or to sustain the fairness and genuineness of any documentary evidence by which that title is witnessed. This position seems unwarranted by either the language or spirit of the statute removing the disqualifications as witnesses, of parties to civil proceedings, or by any adjudications under it. It will be found upon an examination of the cases decided by this court, some of which are cited in the opinion in the principal case, that the exclusion of a party as a witness has resulted from the contract with the deceased being in issue and on trial, and that the heirs, privies or legal representatives of the deceased, were either parties to the record, or the rights of the estate were involved in the issue, and would be affected by tho result. If the proviso were I construed to have the extensive effect contended for, it would operate to exclude the testimony of an opposite party in every case, to any fact whatever, where he derives any right, title or interest from a contract with a person who may be dead at the time of trial, and in which his right, thus acquired, may be contested by any stranger to such contract, or who may be claiming in open hostility both to his own right and that of his dead grantor, on the trial of a cause of action which may have arisen long after the death of such grantor. Isenhour v. Isenhour, 64 N. C. 640.

The case of Downs v. Belden, 46 Vt. 674, decided upon a statute, precisely like our own, is directly opposed to such a construction, and fully in point on the question involved here. That was a case of trover and conversion of personal property in which plaintiff Downs claimed by purchase through one James Belden, deceased, and so testitied, to which defendant objected because James Belden, his grantor, was dead. Pierrepont, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court, says:

"The defendant insists that the testimony of plaintiff as to purchase of the property in question of James Belden should have been excluded, under section 24, ch. 36, of Gen. Stat., the said James Belden being dead. This is an action in trover to recover the value of the property in question. The cause of action in issue is the unlawful conversion of the property by the defendant. The parties to this cause of action are both living. Hence the case does not come within the letter of the statute, as in Hollister v. Young, 41 Vt. 156. James Belden's estate is in no sense a party to this suit, or in any way interested in or affected by the result, and for that reason the case does not come within the spirit of the statute, or the principle recog nized in Fitzsimmons v. Southwick. and Chaney v. Pierce, 38 Vt. 509-15, and that class of cases. purchase of the property by plaintiff of James Belden was a matter collateral to the cause of action in issue and on trial. It was material and admissible as bearing on the question involved, but it did not constitute the basis of the action or of the defense, and comes clearly within the principle recognized in Bank v.

The

Schofield, 39 Vt. 599; Cole v. Shurtliff, 41 Vt. 311; and Moores, Exr. v. Low, 54 Vt. 561. We think there was no error in admitting this testimony."

NEGLIGENCE - MASTER AND SERVANT— INDEPENDENT CONTRACT.

CARTER v. BERLIN MILLS CO.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

1. THE LIABILITY OF A PERSON FOR DAMAGES arising from the negligence or misfeasance of another, in the performance of a lawful contract, is confined, in its application, to the relation of master and servant, or principal and agent, and does not extend to cases of independent contracts not creating those relations, and where the employer does not retain the control over the mode and manner of executing the work under the contract.

2. THE IMMEDIATE EMPLOYER OF THE AGENT or servant who causes the injury is alone responsible for it: to him only the rule respondeat superior applies.

[blocks in formation]

stream, above the plaintiff's lands. They also own dams, above the plaintiff's premises, on the stream, built for the purpose of holding back the water, and then letting it out to assist in driving logs down the stream when the ordinary flow of the water is insufficient for that purpose.

In the fall of 1873 the defendants made a contract with J. A. & E. D. Thurston, whereby the Thurstons, for a stipulated price per thousand feet, were to cut from the defendants' timber lands certain large quantities of timber, and deliver the same at the mouth of Clear Stream, where the stream empties into the Androscoggin. The Thurstons were at liberty to use the defendants' dams if they wished to.

In fulfilling their contract, the Thurstons used the defendants' lower dam by shutting the gates at night and opening them in the morning, until the rear of their drive had passed the plaintiff's premises. The referee found that the plaintiff had sustained damage, by an unreasonable use of the stream, through the operation of the defendants' dams by the Thurstons, but that the defendants had nothing to do with cutting, hauling or driving the timber down the stream, nor with occasioning the damage complained of, unless they are liable because of their ownership of the dams and of the land where the timber was cut.

The court ordered judgment for the defendants and the plaintiff excepted.

« PreviousContinue »