Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

John J. Nicholson, Respondent, v. Lyman W. Patchin, Appellant

         JUDGES: Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         The report of the referee shows that the defendant employed the plaintiff for one month, for one hundred dollars; that the plaintiff afterwards 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Nicholson v. Patchin
(Oct 1, 1855)