Nickerson v. Russell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, against Edward Russell, Edward B. Russell, and William L. Gage, formerly copartners as Edward Russell and Company, for an alleged breach of an agreement to employ the plaintiff. Trial in the Superior Court, before Maynard, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Contract, against Edward Russell, Edward B. Russell, and William L. Gage, formerly copartners as Edward Russell and Company, for an alleged breach of an agreement to employ the plaintiff. Trial in the Superior Court, before Maynard, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. It appeared that the plaintiff first entered the employment of Edward Russell and Company on July 1,1889; that at that time the firm consisted of George H. Hull, Jr., and the defendants Edward Russell and Edward B. Russell; that the conversation relating to his original employment was between the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The hiring of the plaintiff for the year 1897 by the firm was a joint hiring by the individuals who composed the firm; and as the business was not closed by the voluntary dissolution of the firm, and was continued in the same manner and at the same place, the dissolution did not end the plaintiff’s employment for the year. Hughes v. Gross, 166 Mass. 61. That employment continuing, the plaintiff remained bound to do the same things in reference to the business which was still carried on, and the defendants remained jointly bound to pay him therefor. Therefore his remaining at work after the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hughes v. GrossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beauregard v. Benjamin F. Smith Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Cebu Ass'n of California, Inc. v. Santo Nino De Cebu USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1979
- Reddington v. FraneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905