Case ID: la_15/html/0159-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Simon, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PETERSON vs. SHORT.
    Eastern Dist.
    March, 1840.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    Whether a special contract between plaintiff .and defendant is proved as alleged, or not, the plaintiff will be allowed a reasonable compensation for' his work done for the defendant, who is not to be benefited by it without making compensation.
    This is an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract on the part of the defendant.
    It seems the parlies entered into a sort of special partnership, by which the plaintiff was to cultivate a piece of ground or garden of the defendant, the latter furnishing seeds, utensils, and a horse and cart; the proceeds to be divided. The plaintiff and his wife worked in this garden for about six weeks, when the defendant, without, any apparent cause, dissolved the contract, and turned them adrift. There is no proof of damages. But the district judge was of opinion the plaintiff and wife ought to be paid for their labor; and, also, the sum of eighteen dollars paid by them to another laborer; gave judgment for forty-eight dollars in their favor; from which the defendant appealed.
    
      R. Hunt, for the plaintiff.
    
      Wills, contra.
   Simon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff states that, in consequence of the violation of a contract on the part of the defendant, he has suffered damages to the amount of two thousand dollars. The contract appears to be a sort of special partnership, for the purpose of cultivating a garden for the space of five years, and sharing equally the profits. It is shown in evidence, that plaintiff and wife worked for a short time in the garden, and paid eighteen dollars to a laborer. This case was tried without a jury, and the District Court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for forty-eight dollars, from which defendant appealed.

It does not not appear to us that the district judge came to a wrong conclusion in allowing the plaintiff a reasonable compensation for "his work and that of his wife in the garden of the defendant; and whether a contract, such as alleged in the petition, existed or not, we see no reason why the defendant should benefit from plaintiff’s labor, without compensation ; and it would be unjust to deprive him of the value of his services.

It is, therefore, ordéred, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.