Quirk v. Sunderlin
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge. Action to recover for services performed. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Where a party employed receives a regular specific monthly salary for his services, the presumption of law is that all services rendered by him for his employer during that period, which are of nearly a similar nature to those of his regular duties, are paid for by his salary.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge. Action to recover for services performed. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Where a party employed receives a regular specific monthly salary for his services, the presumption of law is that all services rendered by him for his employer during that period, which are of nearly a similar nature to those of his regular duties, are paid for by his salary. To overcome this presumption, he must show an express agreement for extra pay; otherwise he cannot recover. (Cany v. Halleck, 9…
1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, C. J.
— This action was instituted by respondent to collect from the appellant a certain sum for special services rendered in the collection of accounts. The respondent was in the employ of the Boston Grocery, a partnership of which appellant was a member, and was serving the company as stenographer, collector and bookkeeper, and she alleged that during a certain period of time she did extra service for appellant for which she was to have extra pay in the matter of collecting accounts. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $200, and an appeal has been…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ross v. . HardinNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Cany v. HalleckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Mineau v. Imperial Dredge & Exploration Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1911
- Forster v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Houghton v. KittlemanCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1898
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kelly v. Troy Laundry Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1928
- French v. TebbenIdaho Supreme Court · 1933
- Goetz v. BurgessIdaho Supreme Court · 1951
- McGuire v. Interurban Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Gem State Sales Co. v. Rudin Bros., Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.