Nelichka v. Esterly

12 N.W. 457, 29 Minn. 146, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 69
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 27, 1882·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Berry, J.

The evidence in this case shows that plaintiff was in defendants’ employ, under an engagement to work for them for the entire month of December for $50. That plaintiff left defendants’ service on December 23d, and remained away for four days without any excuse, and not only without defendants’ consent, but in the face of their express objection, and that defendants refused to permit him to re-enter their service upon his return, is undisputed, and in fact admitted by both parties. The contract was, then, entire. The plaintiff did not perform on his part. He offers no excuse for his nonperformance, but, on the contrary, his failure to perform was wholly his own wilful fault. In such a state of facts he is not entitled to recover anything for the partial performance of his engagement; namely, for the work performed by him prior to leaving defendants’ service on December 23d. Metcalf on Contracts, 8; Mason v. Heyward, 8 Minn. 116, (182;) Williams v. Anderson, 9 Minn. 39, (50;) Stees v. Leonard, 20 Minn. 494; Weber v. Clark, 24 Minn. 354; Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. J. Law, 343.

The verdict is entirely unsupported by the evidence, and the judgment is accordingly reversed.

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

Nelichka v. Esterly, 12 N.W. 457, 29 Minn. 146, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 69 (Mich. 1882).

12 N.W. 457 (Nelichka v. Esterly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. Crawford
9 Ohio Law. Abs. 146 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1930)
Johnson v. Fehsefeldt
118 N.W. 797 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Sipley v. Stickney
76 N.E. 226 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
McGrath v. Cannon
57 N.W. 150 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1893)
Peterson v. Mayer
13 L.R.A. 72 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1891)