Gillespie v. Lake (1890) · DecisionDepot

Gillespie v. Lake

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Sep 1, 1890 No. No. 12758Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendants were not liable for the prior debts of the original mail contractor, as they had no contractual obligation to the plaintiff and received no funds for his benefit.

Issues

Whether the defendants were contractually obligated to pay the plaintiff for services rendered to the original contractor prior to their own employment.
Whether the trial court's failure to make more specific findings on the alleged condition of the defendants' employment prejudiced the plaintiff.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the contract of the defendants was with the government of the United States alone, and not with the plaintiff in this action”

“the defendants herein have never received any moneys for the use and benefit of the plaintiff herein arising out of this cause of action”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Del Norte County, and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Belcher, C. C. In April, 1882, W. H. Otto entered into a contract with the government to carry the mails twice a week between Crescent City, in California, and Ellensburg, in Oregon, for the term of four years, commencing July 1, 1882, and the defendants became sureties for the faithful performance of his contract. In June, 1882, Otto employed A. K. Russ to convey the mails over a portion of his route during the whole term of four years, and the agreement between them was put in writing, and signed by them. In pursuance of this agreement, Russ carried the mails until April 1, 1884, when he gave up his contract. Otto then employed the plaintiff to take the place of Russ, and carry the mails over the same portion of the route, during the balance of the four years, and agreed to pay him, for so doing, the sum of $1,300 per year, payable in quarterly installments of $325. Under this employment the plaintiff at once commenced to carry the mails, and continued to carry them until January 1, 1886. Otto was paid by the government quarterly, for the service rendered under his contract up to the end of the year 1884, and he paid the plaintiff the first two installments due him, but failed and neglected to pay the third one, due for the quarter ending December 31, 1884. Early in 1885, Otto absconded, and no further payments were made by the government to him. A correspondence was then commenced with the post-office department in reference to Otto’s contract and the payment of the carriers, and, among others, the following letters were written :—

“Ellensburg, Or., June 22, 1885.

“ To the Second Assistant Postmaster-General.

“ Dear Sir, — The postmaster at this place handed me a letter from you to him last night, in which letter you [404]stated that W. H. Otto, the contractor on route 46141, from Smith River, California, to Ellensburg, Oregon, had notified you that lie (Otto) had never employed me to carry the mail on said route, which statement on the part of Otto is false. It is true that I took the place of Mr. Russ on the route, but with an understanding that I was to receive my pay from Mr. Otto direct, at the rate of $325 per quarter, which was the same as Mr. Russ had been receiving. This agreement was verbal, but in the presence of witnesses; and, upon this agreement, I received two quarters’ pay direct from Mr. Otto, and the third quarter’s pay he left with the postmaster at Crescent City about ten days, stating to the postmaster that the money was mine, but finally drew the money, and left the country before I found out that he had received the check..... Very respectfully,

Related research

Under the new arrangement, resulting from the correspondence, the service was continued, and the defendants were paid at the rate named, until January 1,1886, when the number of trips, and the amount of the quarterly payment to be made therefor, were reduced by the government for the balance of the term. The plaintiff was unwilling to accept a reduced compensation for his service, and thereupon gave it up. The first payment to the defendants was made in September or October, 1885, and they thereafter paid the plaintiff $325 for each quarter, from January 1, 1885, to January 1, 1886. The [406]plaintiff claimed that the defendants ought also to pay him the $325 due for the quarter ending December 31, 1884, which Otto received from the government and appropriated to his own use; but they refused to make the payment, and in March, 1887, he brought this action to recover from them the amount claimed. The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury, and the findings and judgment were in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and then appealed from the judgment and order. It was alleged in the complaint that the defendants, on their application, were authorized and undertook to fulfill the contract abandoned by Otto, upon the express condition that they would pay the plaintiff whatever was due him from Otto, and that $325 of the money paid them by the government was for the plaintiff’s use. The answer denied that defendants accepted any employment for carrying the mails upon an express, or any, condition that they would pay plaintiff any amount whatever due him from Otto prior to January 1, 1885, and further denied that they had received any money from the government for the use of the plaintiff, which had not been paid to him. It is contended for appellant that the issue as to whether defendants accepted their employment to carry the mails, upon the express condition that they would pay the plaintiff whatever was due him from Otto, was a material one, and that the court failed to find upon it, to his prejudice. But the court did find “ that the contract of the defendants was with the government of the United States alone, and not with the plaintiff in this action”; “that the defendants herein have never received any moneys for the use and benefit of the plaintiff herein arising out of this cause of action”; and that there is “no existing obligation, past, present, or future, binding said defendants to pay to plaintiff the sum of $325 which has not been complied with, and which has not been fully met.”

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief