Bailey v. King
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of Philadelphia, to remove the record of an action in which Robert King, by his next friend, Hermanus King, was plaintiff, and Lydia R. Bailey w.as defendant. The action was originally instituted before an alderman, who gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of Philadelphia, to remove the record of an action in which Robert King, by his next friend, Hermanus King, was plaintiff, and Lydia R. Bailey w.as defendant. The action was originally instituted before an alderman, who gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff having filed ■a declaration in indebitatus assumpsit for work and labour done, the defendant pleaded non assumpsit and payment, &c.; and the cause came on for trial on the 6th of February, 1834. It…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Gibson, C. J.
It is conceded that extra-work, by an apprentice, is not a consideration to raise an implied promise; but it is said to be sufficient to support an express one. But if the master be *115chargeable at all, why not on a common count, as in ordinary cases of work and labour done ? It may perhaps be, that without an agreement to define the portion of the work which belongs to the master by force of the indentures, there could be no such thing as extra work. It is cei’tain that an apprentice stands not on the ordinary footing of a servant,; .but…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Missimer v. EbersoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1878
- Proffit v. WilliamsTennessee Supreme Court · 1825