Dearden v. Adams

36 A. 3, 19 R.I. 217, 1895 R.I. LEXIS 92
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided October 23, 1895·Published

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

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

36 A. 3 (Dearden v. Adams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitmarsh v. Hall
3 Denio 375 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)
Gaffney v. Hayden
110 Mass. 137 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1872)