Lee v. Dow
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for the breach of an alleged contract by which the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiffs for the term of one year.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for the breach of an alleged contract by which the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiffs for the term of one year. Transferred from the November term, 1901, of the superior court by Young, J. The writ is dated October 20, 1899, and the ad damnum is $500. It was agreed for the purposes of the case that there was a valid contract between the parties by which the plaintiffs were to work for the defendant for one year from April IT, 1899, for $50 a month, payable monthly; that the plaintiffs worked under the contract from the date aforesaid until October 20, 1899, when the…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
If the “value in controversy” exceeded $100 the exception must be sustained, as in that case the plaintiffs had a right to a trial by jury. ' Bill of Bights, art. 20. The “value in controversy” was the damage to the plaintiffs arising from the defendant’s breach of the contract in discharging the plaintiffs from his service before the expiration of the term. The court ruled that the damage was limited to the sum due the plaintiffs for wages at the date of the writ, which was $55, or thereabouts. This ruling cannot be sustained. The contract was entire and indivisible. There was an absolute…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pierce v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Cutter v. GilletteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Hamilton v. LoveIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Mount Hope Cemetery Ass'n v. WeidenmannIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Litchenstein v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Baker v. Dennis Brown RealtySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
- Van Hooijdonk v. LangleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971
- Ackerman v. MiddlebySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910