Satchwell v. Williams
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for work and labor; brought before a justice of the peace, and appealed by the defendant to the Court of Common Pleas of Now London County, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice of a claim of recoupment, before Holbrook, J. The court found the following facts: The plaintiff entered into the service of the defendant at the wages of one dollar and a half per day, subject to the regulations of the defendant’s mill, one of which was as follows:…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for work and labor; brought before a justice of the peace, and appealed by the defendant to the Court of Common Pleas of Now London County, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice of a claim of recoupment, before Holbrook, J. The court found the following facts: The plaintiff entered into the service of the defendant at the wages of one dollar and a half per day, subject to the regulations of the defendant’s mill, one of which was as follows: “Fourteen days’ notice at office before leaving will be l-equired; ” which regulation was a part of the contract between the…
1Opinion of the CourtPhelps, J.
The plaintiff entered into the employment of the defendant as an operative in his mill for certain stipulated daily wages, but for no specified time, under a contract which contained a provision that the plaintiff should give fourteen days previous notice to the defendant before leaving Ins employment.
It is admitted that the plaintiff continued in the service of the defendant only about a month, and that he wrongfully violated the contract by leaving without notice. The defendant thereby claims to have suffered damage, which he seeks to recoup against the plaintiff’s claim for services, and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Sterling Organ Co. v. HouseWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Hurxthal v. St. Lawerence Boom & Mfg. Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Hincks Coal Co. v. MilanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1937
- Partridge v. The Margaret J. SanfordU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1888
- City of Bridgeport v. Aetna Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.