Calloway

Calloway v. Oro Mining Co.

Good Law
5 Cal. App. 191·89 P. 1070
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1907Civ. No. 314.California923 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Allen, J.

Action for personal services of plaintiff and assignors. Judgment for plaintiff; new trial denied. Appeal by Florence A. Stongh, one of the defendants, from the order denying a new trial.

It appears from the record that Mrs. Stongh, the appellant, on July 16, 1902, was the owner of mining property in San Diego county which was subject to an executory contract of sale, under which the Oro Mining Company, a corporation, was in possession. Plaintiff and three others were engaged in work on the mine for the corporation, and becoming dissatisfied by reason of default in the payment of their wages, determined to quit work and to institute proceedings to collect their unpaid wages. Mrs. Stongh, being informed of this threatened action upon the part of the employees, authorized one Mullins, a stockholder in the corporation, to agree with the workmen that if they would continue at work and keep the mine free from water, she would pay them their wages when she obtained possession of the mine. ' This promise and proposition Mullins communicated to the men and they continued at work on the mine until November 7, 1902, at which date the appellant obtained possession of the mine. She, however,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.