Danville v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover for two weeks’ labor for the defendants. Plea, the general issue. Facts found by the court. The plaintiff is a minor. She entered the service of the defendants October 18, 1881, and left it January 1, 1882, and the services for which she seeks to recover were rendered during the two weeks immediately prior to and including the day last named.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover for two weeks’ labor for the defendants. Plea, the general issue. Facts found by the court. The plaintiff is a minor. She entered the service of the defendants October 18, 1881, and left it January 1, 1882, and the services for which she seeks to recover were rendered during the two weeks immediately prior to and including the day last named. When she entered their service she signed the following contract, to which was annexed a copy of the rules referred to in it. “ Manchester, N. H., October 18, 1881. In consideration that the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company have…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
Valid contracts may undoubtedly be made between master and servant, requiring the latter to give notice of an intention to quit a certain time before leaving, and that, in default thereof, he shall forfeit all wages that may be due him; but the forfeiture is not incurred and does not apply in cases where the breach is involuntary on his part, or is occasioned by causes over which he has no control (Fuller v. Brown, 11 Met. 440, Hughes v. Wamsutta Mills, 11 Allen 201, Harrington v. Iron Works Co., 119 Mass. 82); nor is such a contract binding upon a minor. Lufkin v. Mayall, 25 N. H. 82;…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thomas v. DikeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1839
- Whitmarsh v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Gaffney v. HaydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Harrington v. Fall River Iron Works Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Ray v. HainesIllinois Supreme Court · 1869