Tatterson v. Suffolk Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The declaration alleged that the defendants hired the plaintiff as their superintendent by the year, and, having employed and paid him for a year and three quarters of a second year, refused to employ or pay him for the last quarter of this year.
Read the full summary
Contract. The declaration alleged that the defendants hired the plaintiff as their superintendent by the year, and, having employed and paid him for a year and three quarters of a second year, refused to employ or pay him for the last quarter of this year. The answer denied that the plaintiff was employed by the year, and alleged that he was employed by the quarter, was paid for all the quarters for which he was employed, and was discharged after due notice ; and it also set up the statute of frauds. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., there was evidence that the…
1Opinion of the Court
.Wells, J.
The correspondence forms only a part of the evidence by which the contract of the parties was proved. There *59was no express stipulation, .either written or oral, which fixed the time for the continuance of the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant. That element of their contract depended upon the understanding and intent of the parties; which could be ascertained only by inference from their written and oral negotiations, the usages of the business, the situation of the parties, the nature of the employment, and all the circumstances of the case. It was an inference of fact,…
2Cited by44 opinions
- Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Watson v. . GuginoNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Adams v. . FitzpatrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Hicks v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Barger v. General Electric Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1984
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.