Koplitz v. Powell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Koplitz v. Powell

14 N.W. 831, 56 Wis. 671, 1883 Wisc. LEXIS 425

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 30, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 14 N.W. 831 (Koplitz v. Powell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Koplitz v. Powell, 14 N.W. 831, 56 Wis. 671, 1883 Wisc. LEXIS 425 (Wis. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Cassoday, J.

Beyond question the contract thus admitted was entire. Being entire, the plaintiff could only recover upon showing full performance on his part, or some valid excuse for nonperformance. Jennings v. Lyons, 39 Wis., 553; Diefenback v. Stark, ante, p. 462. The failure of such performance is conceded, and the absence of such excuse is found by the court. From a careful reading of the testimony we are convinced that there is evidence to sustain the finding. At least, there is no such clear preponderance of evidence in [673]*673favor of the plaintiff as would authorize this court to disturb the judgment. Kibbee v. Howard, 7 Wis., 150; Evans v. Bennett, 7 Wis., 404; Hutchinson v. Eaton, 9 Wis., 226; Davis v. Judd, 11 Wis., 11; Stewart v. Stewart, 50 Wis., 445. A rehearsal of the evidence would only incumber the reports, without being of any benefit to any one, and we therefore refrain from doing so. We think counsel were right in arguing that a servant is not required to work during unseasonable hours, unless the contract or nature of the employment make it reasonable that he should do so. If he voluntarily does so, however, it is no ground for extra compensation, and much less for claiming a breach of contract by the other party. This is but the converse of the proposition held in Bast v. Byrne, 51 Wis., 531, and necessarily follows from the reasoning upon which that decision owas based. But the mere request to perform such unseasonable service would not of itself justify the servant in quitting the employment. Nor would the refusal to perform such unseasonable service justify his discharge by the defendants. If the son had in fact been unlawfully discharged, as claimed, then undoubtedly the plaintiff might have recovered for any damages sustained. Everson v. Powers, 89 N. Y., 527. But the difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is that the court has found against him on the facts, and we are not authorized, for the reasons given, to disturb that finding. This disposes of the case, and renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed in the briefs.

By the Court.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

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

Cassoday, J.

Beyond question the contract thus admitted was entire. Being entire, the plaintiff could only recover upon showing full performance on his part, or some valid excuse for nonperformance. Jennings v. Lyons, 39 Wis., 553; Diefenback v. Stark, ante, p. 462. The failure of such performance is conceded, and the absence of such excuse is found by the court. From a careful reading of the testimony we are convinced that there is evidence to sustain the finding. At least, there is no such clear preponderance of evidence in [673]*673favor of the plaintiff as would authorize this court to disturb the judgment. Kibbee v. Howard, 7 Wis., 150; Evans v. Bennett, 7 Wis., 404; Hutchinson v. Eaton, 9 Wis., 226; Davis v. Judd, 11 Wis., 11; Stewart v. Stewart, 50 Wis., 445. A rehearsal of the evidence would only incumber the reports, without being of any benefit to any one, and we therefore refrain from doing so. We think counsel were right in arguing that a servant is not required to work during unseasonable hours, unless the contract or nature of the employment make it reasonable that he should do so. If he voluntarily does so, however, it is no ground for extra compensation, and much less for claiming a breach of contract by the other party. This is but the converse of the proposition held in Bast v. Byrne, 51 Wis., 531, and necessarily follows from the reasoning upon which that decision owas based. But the mere request to perform such unseasonable service would not of itself justify the servant in quitting the employment. Nor would the refusal to perform such unseasonable service justify his discharge by the defendants. If the son had in fact been unlawfully discharged, as claimed, then undoubtedly the plaintiff might have recovered for any damages sustained. Everson v. Powers, 89 N. Y., 527. But the difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is that the court has found against him on the facts, and we are not authorized, for the reasons given, to disturb that finding. This disposes of the case, and renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed in the briefs.

By the Court.— The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.W. 831, 56 Wis. 671, 1883 Wisc. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koplitz-v-powell-wis-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack