Willey v. Warden
Willey v. Warden
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
It seems to us the defendant must he regarded as acquiescing in the plaintiff’s claim to he paid for the time he was travelling to and from his work, by making no objection when told that was the plaintiff’s practice, and suffering him to go on and and perform more service with the expectation he should be so paid. The fact, too, that he, by extra effort, performed full days’ work upon those days would seem to entitle him to recover, on that ground. And there is nothing showing that the plaintiff was required to accept what he took in full for his claim, or that his saying there would be no trouble about it, was based upon any supposition, that he was precluded from making any just claim by accepting the money offered, but only that he should sooner lose it than sue, which was undoubtedly a far wiser conclusion than that which induced this suit.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Seth Willey v. David Warden, Apt.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- The defendant employed the plaintiff at a price per day agreed upon to labor upon a house he was building eleven miles from the-plaintiff ’s residence, to which the plaintiff would frequently return and spend his nighis and not reach the defendant’s house until after the usual time of commencing work upon the mornings following. The plaintiff informed the defendant soon after commencing work that he charged for full time, to which the defendant made no objection at the time or until after the completion of the work, when he claimed a deduction for the time spent by the plaintiff in travelling. Held, that his making no objection at the time of being informed and suffering the plaintiff to continue his work in the expectation of being paid for full time, should be regarded as an acquiescence in, and assent to the plaintiff’s claim. Upon the completion of his work, the plaintiff received the balance offered him by the defendant, who deducted for the time spent in travelling to and from his residence, the plaintiff saying that it was not enough, but that there would be no trouble about it. Held that this did not amount to an acceptance of the sum offered in full satisfaction of his claim.