The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-03-04
I. S. Ford for State
l.. +. BIRDsoNG !

JOHN ]. ELLIS.
county. L. j. Wharton, Judge.
Master and serrant. Discharge Of en-
ployee before expiration Of contract.
ARNOLD, j.:
Birdsong, merchant, employed Ellis
as clerk for twelve months, at $50 pei
month. Ellis worked for one month
and was then discharged by Birdsong
who at the same time offered $50 for the
month he had worked as a final settle
ment between them. Ellis declined tC
accept the $50 on these terms and left
the store. On the same or the next day
Birdsong met Ellis, and told him that
he desired that there should be no hard
feelings between them, ard that he was
willing 20 keep him in his employment
and requested him to return to the store
and go to work. Ellis refused to do so
and was not able to obtain other bust
ness until more than two months after
wards, when he was employed by
wards, Ellis sued( for damages on the
breach of contract and recovered iudg
ment for S165, and Birdsong appealed
The contest is mainly as to the effect
of the offer made by Birdsong to take
Ellis back into his employment. The
court below refused to instruct for APP
pellant, that the offer, if proven, barred
appellee from recovering more than the
$50 admitted to be due for one months
service prior to the discharge. This in,
struction should have been given The
offer made by Birdsong must be con
strued as a proposition to Ellis to resume
and continue under the original con
tract. If it had varied the terms OF
the first engagement, or if anything had
occurred to render further intercourse
or association between the parties often.
sive or degrading, or if Ellis had en-
gagged III other employment incompati
be with his returning, he might have
rejected the offer with safety. But the
record shows nothing of the kind, and
the invitation should have been accepted
Saunders q. anderson, 2 Hill, S. c.
Prichdrd q. Martin, 81 Miss.
The well-established modern doctrine
is, that if one employed for specified
time is wrongfully discharged before the
expiration of the term, the employer i.
bound to pay him such damages, not to
SANCNh ihiA lOl Tic WnOlC IlInc
specified in the contract, as he may sus.
tain on account of being discharged. But
the employee, in such case, is required to
make reasonable exertion to prevent
loss by obtaining other employment
and his recovery is limited to the actual
damage he sustains, which is the amount
he would have received if he had been
permitted to complete the contract, less
what he has earned in the meantime, or
what he might have earned by due dill
gence in seeking employment. Hunt q.
Crane, 33 Miss. If, through negligence
or wilfulness, he remains unemployed
and allows damages to be unnecessarily
enhanced, the increased loss Justly falls
on him. If, of his own choice, he eats
the bread of idleness, he cannot compel
his employer to pay for it. If the en-
ployer has done wrong, another wrong
committed by the employee is not the
remedy provided by law And this is
sound morals as well as settled law. 1t
protects the innocent party to the full
extent of his contract, as far as actual
damages may compensate for loss, and
it forces the wrong-doer to make repara-
ton for the injury he has inflicted.
Reversed
III. G. Conn, for appellant.
W. z. & j. b. Harris, for appellee.