Luske v. Hotchkiss
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for -work and labor, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County. The case was referred to an auditor, who found the issue for the defendant. The plaintiff remonstrated against the acceptance of the report. The defendant demurred to the remonstrance, and the court reserved the case for the advice of this court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSeymour, J.
This action is for work and labor. The question submitted to us arises from facts substantially as follows:
On the 2d day of April, 1869, the parties contracted by parol that the plaintiff should at once enter into the defendant’s service to labor at the defendant’s gas works. The work required the plaintiff’s constant supervision and attention, but the actual physical labor required averaged only four *220hours per day. ' The price agreed was $10.50 per week. The plaintiff worked for the defendant under this contract till July 4th, 1869, and then left. The defendant has paid him $10.50 for each…
2Cited by15 opinions
- McCarthy v. . Mayor, Etc., of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Woods v. City of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Grisell v. Noel Bros. Flour, Feed Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Connolly v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- County of Christian v. MerriganIllinois Supreme Court · 1901
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.