Drysdale v. Wetz

Supreme Court of Kansas

Drysdale v. Wetz

171 P. 8, 102 Kan. 422, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 56

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedFebruary 9, 1918

DocketNo. 21,272

StatusPublished

This text of 171 P. 8 (Drysdale v. Wetz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drysdale v. Wetz, 171 P. 8, 102 Kan. 422, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 56 (kan 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

The action was to recover for labor and services as a farm hand, plaintiff alleging that he had been employed by defendants to work for them for a certain period, and that they had discharged him before the expiration of the term. The verdict of the jury was in plaintiff’s favor, and defendants appeal.

The main contention is that there was no evidence to sustain a judgment against William Wetz, and that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question of his liability. William Wetz is the father-of the other two defendants and owns the farm where plaintiff worked. The defendants appeared in both the justice and district courts by the same-attorneys, and no contention was made at either triál that the employment of plaintiff was on behalf of the sons alone, or that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the court in submitting to the jury the question of the liability of William Wetz. He neither demurred to the evidence, nor asked a special instruction upon the theory that the evidence was insufficient to hold him liable; and the contention now urged seems to be based upon the fact that the evidence showed the contract of plaintiff’s employment was made with the sons. The plaintiff testified that he was employed by Fred and Herman, and that he worked for the defendants, and there was some testimony tending to show that the farm was operated jointly by all the defendants. William Wetz testified that he was not present when the boys hired plaintiff, but when informed by them of the employment, he said to them that they had done a good thing.

Complaint is made of an instruction which charged that there was no dispute between the parties over the fact that they entered into a verbal contract with the plaintiff by which he agreed to perform work for them at a certain rate per [424]*424month. No objection was made to the instruction. If one of the defendants had a different theory from the others, upon which he claimed he was not liable to plaintiff, he should have presented it to the court by a request for a special instruction, or in some other manner. Of its own motion, the court instructed that if the jury found plaintiff entitled to recover from one or more of the defendants, and not entitled to recover from all, they should return a verdict accordingly. We are unable to see that William Wetz was prejudiced by this instruction.

There being some evidence to sustain the judgment, it is affirmed. '

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

The action was to recover for labor and services as a farm hand, plaintiff alleging that he had been employed by defendants to work for them for a certain period, and that they had discharged him before the expiration of the term. The verdict of the jury was in plaintiff’s favor, and defendants appeal.

The main contention is that there was no evidence to sustain a judgment against William Wetz, and that the court erred in submitting to the jury the question of his liability. William Wetz is the father-of the other two defendants and owns the farm where plaintiff worked. The defendants appeared in both the justice and district courts by the same-attorneys, and no contention was made at either triál that the employment of plaintiff was on behalf of the sons alone, or that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the court in submitting to the jury the question of the liability of William Wetz. He neither demurred to the evidence, nor asked a special instruction upon the theory that the evidence was insufficient to hold him liable; and the contention now urged seems to be based upon the fact that the evidence showed the contract of plaintiff’s employment was made with the sons. The plaintiff testified that he was employed by Fred and Herman, and that he worked for the defendants, and there was some testimony tending to show that the farm was operated jointly by all the defendants. William Wetz testified that he was not present when the boys hired plaintiff, but when informed by them of the employment, he said to them that they had done a good thing.

Complaint is made of an instruction which charged that there was no dispute between the parties over the fact that they entered into a verbal contract with the plaintiff by which he agreed to perform work for them at a certain rate per [424]*424month. No objection was made to the instruction. If one of the defendants had a different theory from the others, upon which he claimed he was not liable to plaintiff, he should have presented it to the court by a request for a special instruction, or in some other manner. Of its own motion, the court instructed that if the jury found plaintiff entitled to recover from one or more of the defendants, and not entitled to recover from all, they should return a verdict accordingly. We are unable to see that William Wetz was prejudiced by this instruction.

There being some evidence to sustain the judgment, it is affirmed. '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 P. 8, 102 Kan. 422, 1918 Kan. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drysdale-v-wetz-kan-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack