Case Name: Jas. S. Miller vs. Gidiere & Marmande
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1884-02
Citations: 36 La. Ann. 201
Docket Number: No. 9075
Parties: Jas. S. Miller vs. Gidiere & Marmande.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 201–204

Head Matter:
No. 9075.
Jas. S. Miller vs. Gidiere & Marmande.
Tlie demand is for eleven hundred dollars. The answer admits that three hundred and fifty six dollars and sixty-six cents had been owing, but avers it had already been paid, and denies owing any more. Motion to dismiss refused, because the pleadings show a claim for more than the appoalahle sum, and a denial of any indebtedness whatever. Distinction drawn between this and Dcnégre vs. Moran. 35 A. 346.
A contract for an overseer’s wages thus: — I agree to your conditions, viz: $100 a mouth, which will be eleven hundred dollars for this year, one month having already elapsed— construed to be a contract for the term and not by the month.
A discharge for good cause disentitles the party discharged to wages for a longer time than he served.
Gross inattention to and non-performance of duties, or conduct such as to endanger the control of the hands and drive them away, and thus entail irremediable loss, conjoined witli sickness, which incapacitates him for service, will justify the discharge of an overseer.
An overseer’s wages cannot he docked for sickness unless the same he stipulated expressly. Protracted sickness may be sufficient cause for discharging him, hut so long as he remains in employment, he is entitled to his wages.
A PPEAL from the Nineteenth District Court, Parish of Terrebonne. IT Goode, J.
L. F. Buthon for Plaintiff and Appellee.
J. B. Winder for Defendants and Appellants.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
MANNING, J.
The plaintiff claims eleven hundred dollars as overseer's wages. The defendants admit that he had earned $356 66, hut aver they have paid that sum, and deny owing any more.
The plaintiff was examined as a witness on the trial, and admitted the payment alleged and declared it was a proper credit upon his demand. The judgment was for 'the difference, $743 34, and the defendant appealed.
The plaintiff moves to dismiss.
There is a distinction between this case and Denégre vs. Moran, 35 A. 346, which at first glance seems too finely drawn, hut it exists nevertheless. In that case the plaintiff's claim was eleven hundred dollars, and the defendant admitted that he owed $173. The amount in dispute therefore could not exceed $927, and we dismissed the appeal.
In this case the plaintiff's claim is also eleven hundred dollars, and he admits that $356 66 was once due, but avers that he has paid it, and now owes nothing.
Tested by the pleadings, we have jurisdiction. It is true the evidence exhibits an admitted payment which reduces the amount really due below the appealable sum, but we have to look beyond the face of the pleadings to find out that. The answer, unlike that of Moran, does not admit that he owes a specified sum, but alleges that he has paid all that he ever owed, and non constat that he will prove that. So that in the pleadings we have a demand by one of an amount of which we have jurisdiction, and a denial by the other that he owes any part of it. We must maintain the appeal. Connors vs. Citizens' Co., 22 A. 330.
The motion is refused.