Merrill v. Fish
Supreme Court of Vermont
Exceptions from the city court for the city of Rutland. The action was general assumpsit, the plea, the general issue, and the trial by court.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the city court for the city of Rutland. The action was general assumpsit, the plea, the general issue, and the trial by court. The evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that he contracted with the defendant to work for him for a term of twelve months from the fifteenth of day November, 1894, for the sum of one hundred and sixty-five dollars and that the defendant was to pay him his wages from time to time as they were earned ; that he worked for the defendant until June 25, 1895, and at that time quit work for the reason that the defendant would not pay him as fast as he…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
The plaintiff agreed to work for the defendant one year, beginning November 15, 1894, for one hundred and sixty-five dollars; the defendant agreed to pay him from time to time as he could. The plaintiff aban*477doned the defendant’s service June 25, 1895, and about the first day of July following demanded the amount he claimed was due him under the contract. The defendant in response to the demand wrote him that he would not pay him any more until the year of the hiring had expired. We construe this as a promise to pay at that time at the contract price. This is sufficient evidence that the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Patnote v. SandersSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Rogers v. SteeleSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
- Boyle v. ParkerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874