(Download) "Freeman v. Withers" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Freeman v. Withers
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 23, 1937
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Submitted February 9, 1937. Master and Servant ? Action for Wages Under Oral Agreement ? Complaint ? Sufficiency ? Pleading ? Liberal Construction ? Principal and Agent ? Ratification of Act of Agent by Principal ? Appeal and Error ? Sufficiency of Evidence ? Rule. Pleading ? Liberal Construction ? Whatever Necessarily Implied must be Taken as Directly Averred. 1. A complaint, attacked as insufficient, must be construed liberally with a view to substantial justice between the parties, and whatever is necessarily implied in or is reasonably to be inferred from the allegations must be taken as directly averred. Master and Servant ? Action for Wages ? Sufficiency of Complaint to Show Contract of Employment. 2. Complaint in an action for wages alleging that plaintiff entered the service at defendant's instance and request at the agreed and reasonable compensation of $10 a day as an oil well driller, was sufficient to show a contract between the parties as against the contention that it was insufficient to show that defendant agreed to pay the daily wage mentioned, it being fairly inferable from the averment that the compensation was agreed upon by the parties. Same ? What Insufficient to Render Complaint Insufficient. 3. The fact that the complaint above alleged that the compensation agreed upon was the ""reasonable"" compensation held not defective, in view of the rule that where the agreement fixes the compensation it becomes the reasonable compensation. Same ? Oral Agreement as to Wage Per Day ? Action on Contract ? Immateriality of Finding of Jury That Amount Awarded was Reasonable Value of Work Performed. 4. Where the verdict in an action for wages based on an express oral stipulation as to the wage per day, was for the amount as so fixed, the fact that the jury in its finding declared that the amount so found was the reasonable value of the work and labor performed was immaterial. Appeal and Error ? Rule for Testing Sufficiency of Evidence. 5. In testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict for plaintiff, the supreme court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to him; and if there be substantial evidence in the record to support it, the verdict must stand. Principal and Agent ? Agency may be Shown by Circumstantial Evidence. 6. Agency may be implied from conduct and from all the facts and circumstances in the particular case, and may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Same ? Ratification of Act of Agent by Principal ? From What Acts Ratification may be Implied. 7. Ratification of an act of an agent may be implied from the acts and conduct of the alleged principal which reasonably tend to show an intention on the part of the latter to ratify, provided that in doing the acts relied upon as a ratification he acted with knowledge of the material facts; the rule being particularly applicable where it appears that the principal has repeatedly recognized and approved similar acts done by the agent, or where his conduct is inconsistent with any other intention. Trial ? Jury Exclusive Judges of Weight and Credibility of Evidence. 8. Jurors are the exclusive judges of the weight and credibility of evidence; they may reject the evidence offered by one party and accept that offered by the other. Master and Servant ? Action to Recover Wages ? Employment of Plaintiff by Defendant's Foreman ? Ratification of Foreman's Act by Master. 9. Evidence in an action by an oil well driller against the owner of the drilling rig to recover for services rendered, held to have warranted a finding in favor of plaintiff on the theory that while he had been hired by defendant's foreman, defendant, with knowledge of the facts relating to the expense of operating the rig and purchase of materials in his name, by his acts and conduct ratified the foreman's act in securing the services of plaintiff.