Case ID: mass_109/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrew J. Carter vs. Franklin Telegraph Company.
    Evidence of a hiring “ for at least six weeks if not more ” will sustain a declaration alleging a hiring for six weeks. '
    Contract. Writ dated October 11, 1869. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff agreed to furnish a team to the defendants for six weeks, and they agreed to pay him therefor $8 per day; that after twelve days they sent the team back to him; that .he performed all his part of the agreement, except so far as prevented by the defendants; and that they owed him $288.
    At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that the defendants hired the plaintiff’s team on August 25, and afterwards discharged it. The plaintiff testified “ that the agreement made with the defendants was for the use of the team for at least six weeks if not more, for which they were to pay him for six weeks of working days of six days each, or thirty-six days at $8 a day.” The judge instructed the jury that, “ if they were satisfied from the evidence that the agreement was that the team should be employed at least six weeks of working days at $8 for each day, they were authorized to find it was an entire contract for six weeks, although the defendants also told the plaintiff at the same time that they might perhaps want the team longer.”
    The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim, and the defendants alleged exceptions.
    
      H. W. Holland, for the defendants.
    
      W. S. Stearns, for the plaintiff, was not called upon.
   By the Court.

The declaration alleged a hiring for six weeks; and the proof supported the declaration. The additional proof was merely that the defendants gave the plaintiff encour agement that they might want to hire his team longer, but did not contract for any further hiring. There is no variance between the allegation and the proof of what the contract was.

Exceptions overruled.