Gabriel v. Bank of Suisun

SHAW, J.

This is an action to recover one thousand dollars as damages for a breach of contract of employment of the plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

[267]

The court below finds that the defendant employed plaintiff as its assistant cashier and bookkeeper on or about January 1, 1899, for the year 1899, at a salary of one hundred dollars per month, payable monthly, and that plaintiff entered the service of defendant under said employment, remained in its said service until March 1, 1899, was then wrongfully discharged by the defendant, and was not allowed to remain in said employment for the remainder of the year 1899, whereby he was damaged in the sum of one thousand dollars, for which sum the judgment was rendered.

It is contended that the evidence does not support the finding that the plaintiff was employed by the year for the year 1899. This contention, however, cannot be sustained. The plaintiff testified that he was employed as bookkeeper and assistant cashier in July, 1895, and was continued in that employment to the end of that year “at a salary of $100 a month—$1,200 a year.” He then proceeds as follows: “I was employed after that at the end of December, 1895, in the same capacity for the year 1896, at the same salary, $1,200. I continued in that employment during the whole year 1896. I was again employed December, 1896,

for the year 1897

in the same capacity, at the same salary. I remained in the employment during the year 1897. I was again employed at the end of 1897 for 1898, in the same capacity, at the same salary, payable monthly. I continued in that capacity during the year 1898.—Q. Did you continue in the service of the bank in that capacity any longer than 1898 ?—A. I did, two months, January and February, 1899,”—and further, that he then quit the employment because he was discharged by the' defendant. By the provisions of section 2012 of the Civil Code, “Where, after the expiration of an agreement respecting the wages and the term of service, the parties continue the relation of master and servant, they are presumed to have renewed the agreement for the same wages and term of service.” The above testimony sufficiently shows that the plaintiff had been employed for the year 1898 at an annual salary of twelve hundred dollars, payable monthly, and that he continued in that employment during the first two months of 1899. From this the presumption arises, under the section quoted, that the employment was renewed for the same wages and term as for the previous year. There was evidence con