Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/659

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

liEATHEBBEBRT V. ODELL. 617 �the unexpired term she received other similar employaient, or might have received such employment by proper efforts ; as she is only entitled to actual loss from the breach of the ' contract, and cannot recover for loss which might have been prevented by reasonable diligence. A discharged servant cannot lawfully spend the balance of an unexpired term of service in idleness and sloth, but must use reasonable efforts to relieve the employer from damage and loss. �This question of reasonable diligence is a question of fact for the jury, and the bufden of proof is upon the defendants, as they must rebut the prima facie presumption in favor of the plaintiff. She is required only to have used reasonable dili- gence in obtaining employment in business 6f the same kind, or similar to that mentvoned iw the contract. You have heard the evidence of the defendants upon that siibject, and, if satis- factory, you can mitigate the damages to the extent of the damages actually received by the plaintiff during the unex- piired term, or such as might have been received by proper effort in seeking employment. �The plaintiff further insists that the defendants, in express terms, agreed to receive her into their employment at their own risk, after she had told them that she might not suit them, and that, therefore, there was no implied contract on her part that she possessed the degree of skill, knowledge, and expe- rience requisite to discharge the duties of the position which she had accepted, and to perform in a highly satisfactory manner the service she had entered upon. It appears in evidence that, at the time the contract was made, she was engaged in suCh service in the city of Baltimore, and in the usual manner was publicly seeking custom in that line of business. By so doing she represented herself to the public as being skilled and qualioed in that employment, and the defendants had a right to suppose that such representations were, in most respects, to be relied upon. If they took her at their own risk, they could not refuse to pay her for services actually performed, although unskilful and unsatisfactory; but they were not bound to continue the experiment during ��� �