Skym v. Weske Consolidated Co.

California Supreme Court Dec 18, 1896 No. Sac. No. 167Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court reversed the judgments for plaintiffs Skym and Jones due to insufficient evidence of a breach of their written employment contract, while affirming the judgment for plaintiff Bowen but reducing his attorney's fee award to the amount pleaded in the complaint.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the finding that the defendant breached the written employment contract with plaintiffs Skym and Jones.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that plaintiff Bowen was not bound by the written employment contract.
Whether the attorney's fee award for the foreclosure of Bowen's lien exceeded the amount requested in the complaint.

Disposition. reversed in part and modified and affirmed in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As to plaintiffs Skym and Jones, the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, with leave to amend their complaint”

“We think the evidence was sufficient to justify the court in finding that Bowen did not make the contract set out in the answer of defendant, and in sustaining his lien.”

“The court erred, however, in the allowance of $250 as an attorney’s fee for foreclosing his lien. The allegation in the complaint is that $150 is a reasonable sum to be allowed for the foreclosure of Bowen’s lien”

Synopsis

Mining Contract—Laborer’s Lien.—A Contract for Labor on a mine provided that the laborers should receive certain supplies in part payment, and that, after those supplies were paid for, the balance of income remaining should be divided pro rata to the extent of each laborer’s wages at three dollars per day. In ease of failure of profits, the personal property of the mine should be sold to pay the wages due. Held, that, in the absence of anything to show a profit, an action would not lie to enforce a lien for wages unless it were alleged and proved that there had been a request for a sale of the personal property, and a refusal on the part of the owner.

Mining Contract—Laborer’s Lien.—The Contract not Being Restricted in application to the labor performed after it was signed, the actual time of signing is immaterial.

Mining Contract—Laborer’s Lien.—The Date When the Contract purported to be signed by plaintiff is conclusive evidence that the labor performed after that date was done subject to its terms.

Mining Contract—Laborer’s Lien.—Evidence That a Contract purporting to have been made by plaintiff was read to him, he being unable to read or write, with comments thereon representing that it meant something very different from its true meaning, and that thereupon he assented to it, and authorized his name to be signed thereto, is sufficient to justify a finding that plaintiff did not make the contract.

Attorneys’ Fees.—A Judgment for Attorneys’ Fees in an Amount in excess of that claimed in the complaint cannot be sustained.

Appeal.—A Finding Based on Conflicting Evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.

HAYNES, C. This action was brought by the plaintiffs to foreclose their several alleged) liens for labor performed by them, respectively, upon the Weske Consolidated Placer Mine, of which all the defendants were alleged to be reputed owners, and that defendant Muir was the person in charge, and by whom they were employed. Muir answered, alleging that at all the times covered by the alleged claims of the several plaintiffs he was and is the sole owner of said mining property. He admitted the employment of the several plaintiffs, the length of time they had labored in the mine, and, except as to plaintiff Skym, the rate of wages agreed upon. He alleged, however, that the labor performed by the plaintiffs, respectively, was under a special agreement, a copy of which was attached to his answer, and which reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, laborers of the Weske and Mattan claims, accept and subscribe to the following terms, to wit: (1) We agree to receive our board, tobacco, and clothes. (2) The balance due us to be received over and above expenses for supplies, etc., for working mine. (3) The provision bill and supplies for the mine to be paid first, and the balance over to be divided pro rata amongst us until such pro rata makes up our full quota of three dollars per day.

“If I, Wm. Muir, should fail to pay from proceeds herein-before referred, I, Wm. Muir, agree to co-operate with men in making sales of all personal property to make up said wages with the least possible cost.

“WM. MUIR.”

This agreement was signed by plaintiff Skym under date of April 15, 1893, and by plaintiff Jones under date of December 21, 1893, but does not show that it was signed by plaintiff Bowen. This agreement was set out in the finding made by the court, and in relation to said agreement the court found that the defendant William Muir did not perform the conditions of said agreement, and thereafter, and before the fourth day of August, 1894, failed and refused at divers times to co-operate with the said Skym in making sales oí personal property to pay the wages due to the said plaintiffs Skym and Jones, or to perform the other conditions of said agreement by him to be performed. No question was made as to the form [553]or sufficiency of the said liens filed, and the court sustained the lien of plaintiff Bowen, who had not signed said agreement, and denied the liens of plaintiffs Skym and Jones, but gave personal judgment against defendant Muir for the amount found due said Skym and Jones, respectively, and entered judgment foreclosing the lien of plaintiff Bowen. Defendant Muir moved for a new trial, his motion was denied, and this appeal is from the judgment and the order denying his said motion.

Skym v. Weske Consolidated Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief