Pixler v. Nichols
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Olay ton District Court. Tiie plaintiff sued the defendant, before a justice of the peace, for sixty-four dollars, for work done and performed for defendant, at his instance and request. The defendant denied owing the plaintiff anything, and pleaded a set-off of seven dollars, for casli paid to plaintiff’. On the trial before the justice, judgment was rendered for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Olay ton District Court. Tiie plaintiff sued the defendant, before a justice of the peace, for sixty-four dollars, for work done and performed for defendant, at his instance and request. The defendant denied owing the plaintiff anything, and pleaded a set-off of seven dollars, for casli paid to plaintiff’. On the trial before the justice, judgment was rendered for the defendant. On appeal to the district court, the testimony was that the plaintiff' was hired by the defendant to labor for him for the term. of six months, and left, the service of the defendant at the expiration…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
We think the instructions were rightfully refused. If the parties had expressly agreed, that if the plaintiff left the service of the defendant, before the expiration of the time limited, nothing was to be considered as earned by him, there- could be no doubt that the plaintiff could not recover. But where all that is shown is, that upon an agreement to labor for six months, the plaintiff labors four months, and refuses to labor any longer, and sues for the value of the labor performed, we think he is entitled to re*108cover, as upon a quantum meruit; and need not, as a condition precedent, first…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Pierce v. StaubSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Duncan v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
- McClay v. HedgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Peters v. HalliganNebraska Supreme Court · 1967
- Thompson & Son v. BrownSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.