Tilford v. Fairfield Manuf'g Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Tilford v. Fairfield Manuf'g Co.

33 N.W. 364, 72 Iowa 60

DecidedJune 17, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 33 N.W. 364 (Tilford v. Fairfield Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tilford v. Fairfield Manuf'g Co., 33 N.W. 364, 72 Iowa 60 (iowa 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Reed, J.

The circuit court instructed the jury that, if the contract was as alleged in the petition, defendant was bound to give plaintiif steady work so long as it continued him in its employ; and that if it, without entirely releasing him from the engagement, laid .him off for a time, it was responsible to him for his wages during that time; but that, if the employment was for an indefinite period, it had the right to terminate it at any time. Eo exception was taken to this instruction, and the giving of it has not been assigned as error. We will assume, therefore, that it is correct. The evidence is not all set out in the abstract, and we will assume, also, that it was based upon the evidence in the case. Under it the jury were warranted in awarding plaintiif damages to the extent'of the amount of his wages during the time he was laid' off. The sum awarded is not in excess of that amount. There is therefore no inconsistency between the general and special verdicts.

AFFIRMED.

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

Reed, J.

The circuit court instructed the jury that, if the contract was as alleged in the petition, defendant was bound to give plaintiif steady work so long as it continued him in its employ; and that if it, without entirely releasing him from the engagement, laid .him off for a time, it was responsible to him for his wages during that time; but that, if the employment was for an indefinite period, it had the right to terminate it at any time. Eo exception was taken to this instruction, and the giving of it has not been assigned as error. We will assume, therefore, that it is correct. The evidence is not all set out in the abstract, and we will assume, also, that it was based upon the evidence in the case. Under it the jury were warranted in awarding plaintiif damages to the extent'of the amount of his wages during the time he was laid' off. The sum awarded is not in excess of that amount. There is therefore no inconsistency between the general and special verdicts.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.W. 364, 72 Iowa 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilford-v-fairfield-manufg-co-iowa-1887.