Kohn v. Fandel
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in a justice’s court, to recover the value of personal services. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the municipal court of St. Paul, where the action was tried by the. court, and judgment ordered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial. Plaintiff testified, as follows: “Worked for defendant. * * * He asked me if I wanted to work for him.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in a justice’s court, to recover the value of personal services. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the municipal court of St. Paul, where the action was tried by the. court, and judgment ordered for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial. Plaintiff testified, as follows: “Worked for defendant. * * * He asked me if I wanted to work for him. After some talk he said, ‘I have work the year around and pay $45 per month in summer and $35 in winter.’ I said, ‘If you get short and want a man, send for me.’ * * *…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The evidence of the defendant clearly and unmistakably shows that the services sued for were rendered under a contract to work for three months, and that, before the end of such term, plaintiff quit work without any excuse. This evidence is not contradicted by plaintiff, and there is no reason suggested by the record for disregarding it. Upon it the judgment ought to have been for defendant.
Order reversed, and new trial ordered.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sipley v. StickneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Peterson v. MayerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Johnson v. FehsefeldtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908