Equitable Endowment Ass'n v. Fisher

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It was averred in the narr. that the defendant employed the plaintiff as its general manager for the term of two years, and that the plaintiff entered upon the discharge of his duties under the contract, and continued ⁴³⁸ faithfully to perform them until the defendant wrongfully dismissed him from its service. It is true that the paper-writing offered in evidence contained no stipulation which hound the plaintiff to accept the appointment therein, or to perform its duties; hut nevertheless if he did accept it and perform the duties, it would he strange if he were not entitled to the promised compensation. If one should say to-a laborer, “if you will work in my fields for a month, I will pay you twenty dollars,” and the laborer should accordingly work that length of time, it would he impossible to say that he had not earned the money.

And it could make no possible difference whether the offer of employment were in writing, or by word of mouth. It would not he a contract until accepted and agreed to by the laborer; hut doing the work in pursuance of the proposal is as unequivocal an assent to it, as could he imagined. In Norton vs. Cowell, 65 Md., 359 , the contract was proved by a letter written by the defendant, and assented to by the plaintiff. It was necessary for the plaintiff to prove, not only the execution of the paper-writing, hut also-that it was authorized by the defendant, and that its terms were accepted and performed by the plaintiff.

But all this evidence could not he offered uno flatu. It was necessary to proceed by progressive steps, and the initial step naturally was the proof of the execution. We think, therefore, that there was no error in the first exception. The evidence in the cause tended to show that the paper was signed by Oeas as general agent, and Roder as State agent, and that the plaintiff entered the service of the defendant, and discharged the duties of general manager of its business, and that he was dismissed from its service in March, 1888.

There is some uncertainty from the proof whether the dismissal is to he considered as having taken place on the tenth or the thirty-first day ⁴³⁹ of the month; although his salary was paid up to the latter date. The evidence was conflicting on the question whether the plaintiff was dismissed rightfully or wrongfully. It was shown hy the proof that Ceas and Roder exceeded