Posey v. Garth
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Howard Circuit court, 1st. That where there is a contract to perform labor for apecified length of time, or do a particular act, and the party undertaking to do the act or perform the labor is prevented from doing so by the party employing him, he may sue and recover the full amount of the contract. 3 Mo. Rep, 230; 4 Mo. Rep. 41. 2d.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Howard Circuit court, 1st. That where there is a contract to perform labor for apecified length of time, or do a particular act, and the party undertaking to do the act or perform the labor is prevented from doing so by the party employing him, he may sue and recover the full amount of the contract. 3 Mo. Rep, 230; 4 Mo. Rep. 41. 2d. That in contracts like the present, the party discharging the other cannot, when sued, excuse himself upon the ground that the party discharged had or was about to do an injury to his property, but must bring his action for the injury, if any is…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Scott, Judge.
Bird Posey was employed by Dabney Garth, as overseer, for one year, at the price of one hundred and seventy-five dollars; his term of service commenced on the 1st January, 1838, and he continued industriously employed for Garth until sometime in April following, when Garth told Posey that he must leave his service, that he had been negligent, and had maltreated and injured his negroes : Thereupon Posey left Garth’s employment. It appears that Posey, the *96dav before he was ordered to leave Garth’s service, for some fault supposed to have been committed by one…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Sipley v. StickneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Earp v. TylerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Schnerr v. LempSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Banse v. TateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Lindner v. Cape Brewery & Ice Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.