Harrington v. Fall River Iron Works Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Harrington v. Fall River Iron Works Co.

119 Mass. 82, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 68

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 28, 1875·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

If, as the jury have found under the instructions of the court, the plaintiff was kept from his work by sickness, and gave reasonable notice thereof to the defendant, and was absent only so long as he was so disabled, his absence was not wilful or intentional, and did not forfeit his right to his wages, either under the contract of the parties, or by the general rules of law. Naylor v. Fall River Iron Works, 118 Mass. 317. Noon v. Salisbury Mills, 3 Allen, 340. Fuller v. Brown, 11 Met. 440. Caden v. Farwell, 98 Mass. 137. Exceptions overruled.

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

Gray, C. J.

If, as the jury have found under the instructions of the court, the plaintiff was kept from his work by sickness, and gave reasonable notice thereof to the defendant, and was absent only so long as he was so disabled, his absence was not wilful or intentional, and did not forfeit his right to his wages, either under the contract of the parties, or by the general rules of law. Naylor v. Fall River Iron Works, 118 Mass. 317. Noon v. Salisbury Mills, 3 Allen, 340. Fuller v. Brown, 11 Met. 440. Caden v. Farwell, 98 Mass. 137. Exceptions overruled.

Harrington v. Fall River Iron Works Co., 119 Mass. 82, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 68 (Mass. 1875).

Pincite

119 Mass. 82 (Harrington v. Fall River Iron Works Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related