Nicholson v. Patchin
JOHN J. NICHOLSON v. LYMAN W. PATCHIN
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred, The report of the Referee shows that the defendant employed the plaintiff for one month, for one hundred dollars; that the plaintiff after-wards remained in his service; and that no new contract was made as to the rate of compensation.
The Referee has proceeded on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon a quantum meruit. The rule of law applicable in such cases is, that where the person hired continues in employment without any new contract, the fair presumption is, that both parties understood that the same salary is to be paid. See the N. H. Iron Factory Company v. Jonas Richardson, 5 N. H., 295, and the cases there cited.
The Referee having thus mistaken the rule of law applicable to the facts of the case, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Cited by
- Otten v. San Francisco Hotel Owners Ass'n Civ. 12909 · 1946-05-02