Bougher v. Kimball
Bougher v. Kimball
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action against the defendants as owners of the steamboat Columbus to recover the balance of one hundred and fifty dollars for wages due the plaintiff as mate on said boat for the month of July and up to 26th of August, 1854, at the rate of one hundred and fifty dollars per month. The plaintiff proved his services and their value. It appeared from the testimony of Parker, clerk of the boat, that the plaintiff shipped on board as mate, in February, 1854, and
Upon this state of facts the court was asked to declare that there was a presumption of payment; that the continuance of the plaintiff on the boat as mate after the demand sued on accrued, that is, from August 26, 1854, to June, 1855, ’ and settlements from time to time, and the receipt by the plaintiff of his pay for subsequent trips, created a presumption, in the absence of rebutting proof, that the sum claimed has been paid. This instruction was refused, and instead
There was no error in refusing the instruction asked by the appellants as to the legal effect of the receipts read in evidence. There could be no inference or presumption of law from these facts that the sum claimed had been paid. The receipts were for specific sums, each covering a given period of time, and expressed to be in full for each trip of the boat only. The circumstance of the receipt of money for services rendered subsequent to the time the claim in suit accrued could raise no presumption of this kind, for the receipts, in express terxá!', show that the wages, which they acknowledge to have been paid, accrued during a period different from that to which the claim sued on related. The plaintiff was employed as mate at different times during the years 1854 and 1855, and in every instance the receipts read in evidence specify particularly the time he was employed, the commencement and termination of the services, and the amount of wages paid for that period; and to have construed the receipts as asked by the appellants, would have given them an effect not warranted by any fair import of their terms, nor the understanding of the parties. Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Status
- Published