Parr v. Baer

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $418.31 and costs of suit, in an action brought to recover said sum, alleged to be due as

[150]

salary under a contract for the employment of plaintiff by the defendants for one year.

The defense presented by the defendants at the trial, ancB urged here as the principal ground for reversal -of the judgment, is that the plaintiff was discharged by defendants during the term of said contract; and that this being an action; for the salary due upon the contract of employment after such discharge, instead of an action for damages by reason of his. discharge, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in this ease, but should be relegated to his remedy in the appropriate form. ' of action.

The facts constituting and surrounding the alleged discharge of the plaintiff and his admitted employment are substantially these: The defendants are a firm of New Xork merchants selling goods in California through orders taken by traveling-agents, of which the plaintiff became one under a written contract of employment for a year, dated March 22,1909. Not long after his engagement the plaintiff began receiving letters from the defendants urging greater efficiency, and complaining as to the number and value of orders taken. On May 17, 1909, the plaintiff received a letter from the senior member of the firm reiterating these complaints, and saying in the course of their recital, “Under these circumstances we regret that we have to discharge you. ’ ’ The letter ended with a request that the plaintiff would return the seventy dollars expense money “you have now on hand.” To this letter the plaintiff replied, calling the attention of the firm to his contract of employment for one year, and declaring that he had! fully carried it out on his part, and stood ready and willing-to fulfill it to its completion, and closing with the statement, “I cannot therefore accept such discharge as named in your-letter, and await your further instructions.” To this letter-the plaintiff received no reply, and hence on June 21, 1909, sent another letter to the defendants, inclosing a copy of the; former one, and again repeating that he stood ready and willing to fulfill his contract, and awaited their instructions. To> this letter the plaintiff received a reply from another member-of the firm, stating that “Mr. Max Baer, who dismissed yore from our employ, is at present in Europe, and we therefore must stand by his discharge. We, however, are prepared to-give you another test and try you once again, but only on eon