Mooney

Mooney v. Detrick

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 946·85 Cal. 549·26 P. 280
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 1890No. 12551California1,326 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Thornton, J.

I dissent, and adopt the opinion delivered in Department Two in this case as my opinion herein.

Mr. Justice Fox, being disqualified, did not participate in the decision of the above cause.

The following is the opinion above referred to, delivered in Department Two on the 12th of December, 1889: —

This action is for the recovery of money alleged to be due plaintiff from defendants, under a contract between them to the following effect: Plaintiff having sold and assigned a patent right to defendants, in consideration thereof promised to serve said defendants in and about their business for the term of five years from the first day of January, 1881; and the defendants agreed to employ the plaintiff during said *554 entire period of five years, and to pay him for every day of his employment, during said entire period (Sundays and holidays excepted), the sum of four and one half dollars. Pursuant to the terms of said agreement, defendants employed plaintiff in and about their business constantly, and paid him in full therefor, until the first day of March, 1884. Since March 1, 1884, defendants have failed and refused to give plaintiff employment, except for the space of 1C6 days,…

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

This is an action for the recovery of money alleged to be due plaintiff from defendants, under a contract between them, to the following effect: Plaintiff having sold and assigned a patent right to defendants, in consideration thereof promised to serve said defendants in and about their business for the term of five years from the first day of January, 1881; and the defendants agreed to employ the plaintiff during said entire period of five years, and to pay him for every day of his employment, Sundays and holidays excepted, the sum of four and one half dollars. Pursuant to the- terms of said agreement, defendants employed plaintiff in and about their business constantly, and paid him in full therefor, until the first day of March, 1884. Since March 1,1884, defendants have failed and refused to give plaintiff employment, except for the space of 166 days, and refused to pay plaintiff anything more than $654 under the contract. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, and against the defendants, for the sum of $1,333.40, interest and costs. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and from that order and the judgment this appeal is taken by defendant Detrick. The…

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.