Dearden v. Adams

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Dearden v. Adams

36 A. 3, 19 R.I. 217, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 92

DecidedOctober 23, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A. 3 (Dearden v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dearden v. Adams, 36 A. 3, 19 R.I. 217, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 92 (R.I. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Assuming that the plaintiff was not discharged by the defendant’s agent, but left the defendant’s employment of her own accord, the testimony shows that she was a minor and, therefore, not bound by the contract to give two weeks notice before quitting the employment of the defendant. We are of the opinion that she is entitled to recover under the general counts, as upon a quantum meruit, the money due her, to wit, $12.19, that sum being presumptively what her labor was reasonably worth. Gaffney v. Hayden, 110 Mass. 137; Whitmarsh v. Hall, 3 Denio, 375.

The statute referred to by the plaintiff, if such a statute exists, which it is claimed entitles an employee discharged without notice to recover double the amount due the em *218 ployee at the time, has no application; and, moreover, the Common Pleas Division must have found that she was not discharged, and we cannot review that finding.

Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff. Edward D. Bassett & Edward L. Mitchell, for defendant.

Case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment for the plaintiff for $12.19, with interest from the date of the writ and costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Assuming that the plaintiff was not discharged by the defendant’s agent, but left the defendant’s employment of her own accord, the testimony shows that she was a minor and, therefore, not bound by the contract to give two weeks notice before quitting the employment of the defendant. We are of the opinion that she is entitled to recover under the general counts, as upon a quantum meruit, the money due her, to wit, $12.19, that sum being presumptively what her labor was reasonably worth. Gaffney v. Hayden, 110 Mass. 137; Whitmarsh v. Hall, 3 Denio, 375.

The statute referred to by the plaintiff, if such a statute exists, which it is claimed entitles an employee discharged without notice to recover double the amount due the em *218 ployee at the time, has no application; and, moreover, the Common Pleas Division must have found that she was not discharged, and we cannot review that finding.

Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff. Edward D. Bassett & Edward L. Mitchell, for defendant.

Case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment for the plaintiff for $12.19, with interest from the date of the writ and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 3, 19 R.I. 217, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dearden-v-adams-ri-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack