Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 N.C. 6

Booth v. Ratcliffe

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 15, 1890

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1890-09-15

<p>Employer and Employee — Abandonment of Contract — Charge— Legal Cause for Quitting Service.</p> <p>1. Where only the appellant’s case on appeal is sent up, but it is further made to appear that it was served within the time allowed by law, and no exception thereto was taken, or counter-case served, it must be taken as the “ case on appeal.”</p> <p>2. The defendant resisted an action of his employee for wages on the ground that he abandoned his service before the expiration of the contract. The contract was that plaintiff should work for defendant a year for a fixed sum, and be furnished a house; nothing was said about when the money was to be paid at the time of contract, but afterwards, defendant said he would pay from time to time during the year as he had it, and as plaintiff might need it; that if either party became dissatisfied during the year work was to stop. Defendant paid one dollar in February; he promised more in March, but did not pay it. Defendant did not furnish a sufficient house: Held, (1) that the charge of the Court that upon the plaintiff’s own showing he was not entitled to recover was error; (2) the plaintiff quit for good legal cause; (3) the contract amounted to an undertaking, which either party could put an end to at any time.</p>

Decided 1890-09-15

Clark, J.:

¶1The appellant’s case on appeal alone is sent up, but as it is further made to appear that it was served within the time allowed by law, and no exception thereto nor counter-case was served, it must be taken as the “ case on appeal.” Russell v. Davis, 99 N. C , 115; Simmons v. Andrews, 106 N. C., 201.

¶2The only evidence before the Court, on the trial below, was the testimony of the plaintiff. Taking that to be true, while the hiring was by the year, it was also further agreed that either party could put an end to the contract at any time. Besides, the plaintiff quitted his employment for good legal cause.

¶3Under these circumstances, it was error to instruct the ■jury that, “upon plaintiff’s own showing, he could not recover” upon a quantum meruit for services rendered.

¶4It also appears that there was no implied or express contract that nothing was to be paid till the end of the year, but the reverse, and for that reason, also, the plaintiff could recover, as was held in Chamblee v. Baker, 95 N. C., 98.

¶5Error.

/107/nc/6 · .json · Public domain