Mugnier v. Dendinger

Citations

• 104 La. 767

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>On the Pkincipal Demand.</p> <p>X. When an employee, whose pay has not been fixed, has rendered services (evidently services rendered for remuneration), the employer is liable for their value. The court sustains plaintiff’s demand for services rendered in an amount shown to be due by the preponderance of the testimony, it being evident that each party (employer and employee) contemplated, at the time the services were rendered, that something would be due in compensation.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff was in charge of business for the defendant, as made evident by the testimony, and the services of the former were not those of a mere workman, laborer, or servant, for his wages, and are, therefore, not subject to the prescription of one year.</p> <p>On ti-ie Keconventional Demand.</p> <p>3. Plaintiff and defendant were in account, one with the other. Selecting the items of the account and allowing those that the evidence shows are due, the court holds that the defendant is entitled to the amount which is, therefore, credited on the judgment.</p> <p>4. There being a balance due after allowing the reconventional demand, a judgment is accordingly rendered.</p> <p>5. Judgment amended and, as amended, is affirmed at plaintiff’s and appellant’s costs.</p>