TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thorpe v. White

Thorpe against White and others

Thorpe v. White, 13 Johns. 53 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1816)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
January 15, 1816
Citations
13 Johns. 53
Headnotes
Where there is a contract of hiring for a definite period of time, at a certain rate per day, and a part only of the time having elapsed the parties settle the amount of the wages which had been earned, and the hirer gives his no amount; in an action on the note, it is no defence that the payee had left the maker's service before the expiration of the time which he had been originally hired; although, had there been no subsequent modification of agreement he could have recovered wages until he had served the whole period agreement upon.
Summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, which was tried at the Alba-circuit, in October; 1815, before Mr. J. Yates. The plaintiff produced, at the trial, a promissory note,, executed by the defendants, which being admitted, the counsel for the defendants offered to prove, under the notice subjoined to the plea, that-the defendants being the owners of a eotton manufactory, the plaintiff, who was a joiner, about three months before the exeCutjon of the note, entered into their service, and it was agreed that the defendants shoúld instruct the plaintiff in the making of the machinery necessary and proper for the said , manufactory, and should pay the plaintiff at the rate of one dob iar per day for one year, for his wages in making the same ; in consideration whereof, the plaintiff agreed to work fot the defendants for one year at that rate, and it was further agreed, that the- defendants should settle with the plaintiff at the end pf every three or four months; that at the expiration of about three months from the time the agreement was entered into, the parties computed the amount then due for the plaintiff ’s services, at the stipulated rate, and the note on which the action Was brought was given for the amount; and, shortly afterwards, the plairitiff left the service of the defendants without their consent. The evidence being objected to on the part of the plaintiff, was rejected by the judge, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, arid the pase was submitted to the court without argument, '

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

According to the principles adopted by this court, iii the case of M'Millan v, Vanderlip, (12 Johns. Rep. 165.,) the original contract between the parties was an entire contract; and if there had been no subsequent modification, the,, plaintiff could not have recovered upon it until the expiration, bf the year. But the giving of the nóte in question, by the defendants, was, pro tanto, a change or modification of the original agreement, and precludes them. frQm setting up thq original *54 ' agreement against their own note. ' The evidence .offered wás, therefore, properly overruled, and the motion for a new trial must'be denied.

Motion denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1854–1855: 11856–1857: 11864–1865: 21894–1895: 118542026peak 1864 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walker v. Millard2 N.Y. 375 (1864)
  2. Walker v. Millard29 N.Y. 375 (1864)
  3. Griswold v. Pieratt42 P. 820 (Cal. 1895)
  4. Haslack v. Mayers26 N.J.L. 284 (1857)
  5. Erving v. Ingram24 N.J.L. 520 (1854)

Most recent

  1. Griswold v. Pieratt42 P. 820 (Cal. 1895)
  2. Walker v. Millard2 N.Y. 375 (1864)
  3. Walker v. Millard29 N.Y. 375 (1864)
  4. Haslack v. Mayers26 N.J.L. 284 (1857)
  5. Erving v. Ingram24 N.J.L. 520 (1854)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list