Gallagher v. Wayne Steam Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 221, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Dee. T., 1896, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover balance of salary. Before Clayton, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial Walter B. Smith, a witness called for plaintiff,, testified in chief as follows: “ Q. Mr. Seber was employed by the Wayne Steam Company in the place of Gallagher? A. Yes, sir.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 221, Jan. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., Dee. T., 1896, No. 55, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit to recover balance of salary. Before Clayton, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial Walter B. Smith, a witness called for plaintiff,, testified in chief as follows: “ Q. Mr. Seber was employed by the Wayne Steam Company in the place of Gallagher? A. Yes, sir. Q. What were the-wages paid to Mr. Seber ? ” Defendant objects. The Court: It may have some bearing if his discharge was-for economy. Mr. Robinson of counsel for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
The plaintiff’s trade was that of supervising and directing *100the placing and putting in operation of steam heaters; the defendant’s business was that of contracting for and selling them. In the course of their business they undertook to adapt them to the wants of the purchaser; hence the need of plaintiff’s services. He went into their employ in the year 1890, and so continued until July 30,1893, the contract up to that time resting in parol. As appears by letter of that date -from the secretary of the company to him, there was dissatisfaction with the manner in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lightcap v. KeaggySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Carson v. Hosiery Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Carroll v. Reuben H. Donnelly Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1945