Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Wis. 671

Koplitz v. Powell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1883

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1883-01-30

The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassoday: “ This action is to recover for services rendered by the minor son of the plaintiff, under a special contract made by the defendants with the plaintiff, whereby it was agreed that the son should work for the defendants for the period of seven months from April 8, 1881, for the sum of $14 per month. A failure of such performance is alleged in the complaint and admitted upon the trial.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““But the mere request to perform such unseasonable service would not of itself justify the servant in quitting the employment. Nor would the refusal to perform such unseasonable service justify his discharge by the defendants.” (Italics supplied.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Millar v. Joint School District No. 2

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-01-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1957

9 state decisions

3018831890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cassoday, J.

¶1Beyond question the contract thus admitted was entire. Being entire, the plaintiff could only recover upon showing full performance on his part, or some valid excuse for nonperformance. Jennings v. Lyons, 39 Wis., 553; Diefenback v. Stark, ante, p. 462. The failure of such performance is conceded, and the absence of such excuse is found by the court. From a careful reading of the testimony we are convinced that there is evidence to sustain the finding. At least, there is no such clear preponderance of evidence in *673favor of the plaintiff as would authorize this court to disturb the judgment. Kibbee v. Howard, 7 Wis., 150; Evans v. Bennett, 7 Wis., 404; Hutchinson v. Eaton, 9 Wis., 226; Davis v. Judd, 11 Wis., 11; Stewart v. Stewart, 50 Wis., 445. A rehearsal of the evidence would only incumber the reports, without being of any benefit to any one, and we therefore refrain from doing so. We think counsel were right in arguing that a servant is not required to work during unseasonable hours, unless the contract or nature of the employment make it reasonable that he should do so. If he voluntarily does so, however, it is no ground for extra compensation, and much less for claiming a breach of contract by the other party. This is but the converse of the proposition held in Bast v. Byrne, 51 Wis., 531, and necessarily follows from the reasoning upon which that decision owas based. But the mere request to perform such unseasonable service would not of itself justify the servant in quitting the employment. Nor would the refusal to perform such unseasonable service justify his discharge by the defendants. If the son had in fact been unlawfully discharged, as claimed, then undoubtedly the plaintiff might have recovered for any damages sustained. Everson v. Powers, 89 N. Y., 527. But the difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is that the court has found against him on the facts, and we are not authorized, for the reasons given, to disturb that finding. This disposes of the case, and renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed in the briefs.

¶2By the Court.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

/56/wis/671 · .json · Public domain