King & Graham v. Steiren

44 Pa. 99, 1862 Pa. LEXIS 212
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 13, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 44 Pa. 99 (King & Graham v. Steiren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King & Graham v. Steiren, 44 Pa. 99, 1862 Pa. LEXIS 212 (Pa. 1862).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Strong, J.

The learned president of the District Court has so well vindicated his charge delivered to the jury, 'that little need be said in addition. In the 4th edition of Greenl. on Ev., vol. 2, § 261 a, the author, in discussing the subject of damages, remarks that “ a distinction has been taken between contracts for specific work by the piece, and the like, and contracts for the hire of clerks, agents, labourers, and domestic servants for a year or shorter determinate period; and it is held in the latter class of cases that if the person so employed is improperly dismissed, before the term of service is expired, he is entitled to recover for the whole term, unless the defendant, on whom the burden of proof lies, can show either that the plaintiff was actually engaged in other profitable service during the term, or that such employment was offered to him and rejected.” In support of this doctrine ho refers to Costigan v. The Mohawk and Hudson Railroad Co., 2 Denio 609, where the question is discussed at length, and the English as well as the American cases are largely cited. Without referring to them more particularly here, it will suffice to say that they establish incontrovcrtibly the rule in England to be that, in such a case, the plaintiff is primd facie entitled to the stipulated compensation for the whole time. If so, the burden of proof in regard to his employment elsewhere, or his ability to obtain employment, must necessarily rest on the defendant. All evidence in mitigation is for a defendant to give. In its nature it is affirmative, and hence it is for him to prove who asserts it. But the possibility of obtaining other similar employment, or the fact that other employment was obtained, bears upon the case only in mitigation of damages, and is therefore a part of the defendants’ case.

It is, however, superfluous to add more, or even thus much, to what was said in the court below', and to the cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Wolgin v. Atlas United Financial Corporation
397 F. Supp. 1003 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)
Erler v. Five Points Motors, Inc.
249 Cal. App. 2d 560 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
Vega v. Burgettstown
14 Pa. D. & C.2d 260 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1958)
Weidner v. Augustine Construction Co.
57 Pa. D. & C. 3 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1946)
Gordon v. Tomei
19 A.2d 588 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
J. Purdy Cope Hotels Co. v. Fidelity-Phenix Fire Insurance
191 A. 636 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Spencer v. Gross, Kelly & Co.
163 P. 1087 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1917)
Swavely v. Eno
54 Pa. Super. 82 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
Helfferich v. Sherman
134 N.W. 815 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Millert v. Augustinian College
36 Pa. Super. 511 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)
Webb v. Depew
116 N.W. 560 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
Heyer v. Cunningham Piano Co.
6 Pa. Super. 504 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1898)
Emery v. Steckel
17 A. 601 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Pa. 99, 1862 Pa. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-graham-v-steiren-pa-1862.