Craig v. Pride

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 121

Syllabus

<p>1. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a covenant, in which it was stipulated, that the former should, in all respects, discharge the duties of an overseer, and obey the defendant’s instructions; and for his-year’s services, was to receive a fixed compensation; but if defendant-had cause to turn him off before the end of the year, he was to be at ■ liberty to do so, on giving to plaintiff “ his (defendant’s) obligation for the time he served, payable at the end of the year when his wages would be due, had he continued on.”</p> <p>2. In an action brought upon the covenant after the expiration of the year, it was held that plaintiff was entitled to recover on it, though the parties separated, by consent, before that time.</p> <p>3. Had there been no provision in the covenant that plaintiff should be paid on leaving defendant’s service, even then if dismissed, or leaving by consent, he might have regarded the special contract as ended, or stood on it, giving either of these as an excuse for non-performance on his part, and recovered pro tanto. Vide Rye vs. Stubbs, 1 Hill, 384.</p> <p>4. The rule in pleading is, where there is a condition precedent, such as services to be performed, and in consideration thereof, money is to be paid, there must be an averment of performance, or an excuse for non-performance. The excuse is perfect if the defendant prevent the performance, or consent to the non-performance.</p> <p>5. Whether plaintiff was turned off, or whether defendant consented to his leaving his service, were questions of fact for the jury.</p>