Young v. Jones
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the DesMoines District Court. The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming the sum of $164 50, and averring that at the special instance and request of defendant, he worked for him ninety-four days, and defendant promised to pay him therefor $1 75 per day, which he now refuses, &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the DesMoines District Court. The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming the sum of $164 50, and averring that at the special instance and request of defendant, he worked for him ninety-four days, and defendant promised to pay him therefor $1 75 per day, which he now refuses, &c. The defendant answered, denying that plaintiff worked ninety-four days, as alleged; denying that he owed the plaintiff $164 50, as alleged, or any part thereof; and denying that he undertook and promised to pay plaintiff $1 75 per day for his work. There was also a plea of payment and of set-off. On the…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
We think the evidence first offered by the defendant, should have been received. The plaintiff does not sue to recover, as upon a quantum valebat, or quantum meruit, for as much as' his work was worth, or as much as he therefor reasonably deserved to have; but he sues as upon a special contract, by which he avers, the defendant promised to pay him one dollar and seventy-five cents per day, for ninety-four days’ work. Without considering, at present, whether the plaintiff was bound to prove the contract as laid, and whether a misstatement of the quality or nature of the defendant’s promise,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kossuth County State Bank v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Orcutt v. HansonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Levi v. LeviSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Acme Harvester Co. v. CurleeNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Smith v. RentzNew York Supreme Court · 1891