532
THE GREEN BAG
NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copiei of the pamphlet Reporter! containing fall reports of «ny of these decisions may be «ecared from the Weet Publishlif Company, St. Paul, Minnesota . at aj cente each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given a* well ae the citation of volume and pace of the Reporter in which it ie printed.)
ACTION. (Splitting Causes of Action.) U. S. assuming such to be the facts, the owners could C. C. Mass.— Plaintiff in Flanders v. Canada, not have been injured by Brown's act. as there was A. & P. S. S. Co., 161 Fed. Rep. 378, was employed no question as to the authority of Huntley, who by defendant as general agent for a period of five also condemned the fruit. The judgment over years at a salary of $3000 per year. After serv ruling the demurrer to the answer was therefore ing for a little over six months he was discharged. affirmed. Soon thereafter he brought action for such damages APPRENTICES. (Construction of Contract of as he had then sustained and such as might accrue Apprenticeship.) Colo. — A contract binding out up to the time of trial " but without prejudice to his right to bring subsequent suit or suits for an apprentice is construed in Denver Engineering damages accruing after the trial of this cause." Works Company v. Newman, 95 Pac. Rep. 175, in Counsel agreed as to the amount of damages if an opinion by the Colorado Supreme Court. The plaintiff should be held entitled to recover at all contract provided for services by defendant in error varying rates during an apprenticeship of four on the theory of the complaint that the action at years and thirty days and for the payment of a was for wages and interest thereon to time of hundred dollars additional at the expiration of the verdict. Judgment was rendered in favor of term of service. Each year was to consist of 300 plaintiff and he thereafter brought another action days of 10 hours each, thus making a total of 12,300 similar to the first for wages subsequent to ver dict in the first suit. It was contended by hours. After having worked 11,539$ hours, a part defendant that there originally existed but one of which was at a salary which the company had cause of action which could not be divided and that voluntarily increased above the contract price, plaintiff's first judgment was a bar to further relief. defendant in error was told that his time of ap prenticeship had expired but that on account of the The court said that as defendants had raised no increase in his wages he was not entitled to the objection to the theory of divisibility of causes of promised payment of a hundred dollars extra, action in the former suit it would not be sus specified in his contract. Later on he was told tained in the second. that a mistake had been made and that his time AGRICULTURE. (Destruction of Infected had not expired. It was shown that he had been Fruit.) Wash. — The decision of the Washington at the company's shops for four years and two Supreme Court in Shafford v. Brown et al., 95 months and performed all services required of him. Pac. Rep. 270, though short and concise, disposes It was contended, however, that the contract was of some questions of especial interest to fruit entire, so far as the number of hours' service was growers. Plaintiffs were the successors in interest concerned, and that it could only be discharged by to the owners of apples which defendant Brown, performance of the full 12.300 hours. The court acting as county fruit inspector, and defendant said that such a construction would enable the Huntley, as state commissioner of horticulture, company to prolong the contract indefinitely by had ordered destroyed because of being infected limiting the number of hours per day, and that with pests alleged to be dangerous to the fruit having been at the place of business and ready interests of the state. It was conceded that the to perform during the period stated, the perform statute under which Brown acted was unconstitu ance was complete. The increase of wages, having tional, but the court said he doubtless acted on been voluntarily made, was held to not affect the, the supposition that it was valid, and as the owners right to the extra hundred dollars. of the fruit appealed from his decision, they ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. (Contempt of evidently thought the same; that the affirmative defense to which demurrer was interposed alleged Court.) Mich. — The failure of attorneys to the infection and necessity of destruction; that appear at the time set for trial was held by the
