Case ID: minn_29/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bernard Kohn vs. Henry Fandel.
    October 31, 1882.
    Plaintiff brought this action in a justice’s court, to recover the value of personal services. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the municipal court of St. Paul, where the action was tried by the. court, and judgment ordered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
    Plaintiff testified, as follows: “Worked for defendant. * * * He asked me if I wanted to work for him. After some talk he said, ‘I have work the year around and pay $45 per month in summer and $35 in winter.’ I said, ‘If you get short and want a man, send for me.’ * * * He sent me word, and I commenced work for him on July 8, 1881, until August 30, 1881.” Defendant testified, “I hire them (men) sometimes by the month, sometimes by the season, or three months. This summer I employed plaintiff for three months at the rate of $45 per month, commencing July 8, 1881. Plaintiff left me August 30th. I did not discharge him. He gave me no notice. * * * The contract under which I hired him was an entire contract for the season. I hired him for three months. He never asked me any other terms. * * * I said to him ‘we can’t hire a man except by the season.’ ” This was all the evidence as to the contract of employment.
    
      F. F. Wilde and James B. Beals, for appellant, cited, among other cases, Nelichka v. Esterly, ante, p. 146.
    
      Geo. L. & G. E. Otis, for respondent.
   By the Court.

The evidence of the defendant clearly and unmistakably shows that the services sued for were rendered under a contract to work for three months, and that, before the end of such term, plaintiff quit work without any excuse. This evidence is not contradicted by plaintiff, and there is no reason suggested by the record for disregarding it. Upon it the judgment ought to have been for defendant.

Order reversed, and new trial ordered.