Haywood v. Miller — 3 Hill & Den. 90

Majority

p. 90

Haywood vs. Miller.

Headnote

A contract was entered into between H., the owner of a farm, and one M., by which the latter agreed that he and his wife should work for H. one year—M. to labor on the farm, and his wife to perform the duties of house-keeper. M. with his wife accordingly moved into a house on the farm, carrying with them their household furniture, and entered upon the performance of the contract. Subsequently H., having become dissatisfied with M’s conduct, ordered him to quit and leave the house, which he declined to do ; whereupon H. entered the house and put the furniture out of it. Held, in trespass by M. against H., that the contract between them did not create the relation of landlord and tenant, but only that of master and servant; and that consequently the action, if any, should have been assumpsit for a breach of the contract.

Error to the Columbia C. P., where Miller sued Haywood for trespass. On the trial the following facts were proved : Haywood was a farmer owning two farms several miles distant from each other, one of which was called the upper and the other the lower farm. On the 16th of March, 1839, Haywood and Miller entered into a written contract, by which Miller agreed that he and his wife would labor for Haywood one year ; “ he (Miller) to labor on farm, &c., and she (Miller’s wife) to discharge the duties of house-keeper, &c.—term of labor to commence on the 1st of April, 1839.” The contract further provided, that Haywood should pay Miller for the services thus to be rendered, f 160. There was a dwelling house on the lower farm into which Miller and his wife moved on the 1st of April, 1839, taking with them their household furniture, and commenced their labor. Haywood aided in the removal.

p. 91

The court below allowed parol evidence to be given on the part of Miller, that the farm intended by the written contract and on which he and his wife were to labor, was the lower farm.

In the course of the summer of 1839, Haywood desired Miller to perform some labor on the upper farm, which the latter declined. Differences arose between the parties, and Miller became irritated and threatened to injure some of Haywood’s cattle. Haywood, becoming dissatisfied, gave Miller notice to leave his service, which Miller declining, Haywood entered the house and put Miller’s furniture out of it.

The court charged the jury that neither Miller’s refusal to work on the upper farm, nor his threats of injury to the defendant’s property constituted a violation of the written contract. That the lower farm being the one intended by the contract, it created a tenancy for the year ; and Haywood had no right to interfere with the possession of the house or remove the goods. A bill of exceptions was taken to the charge ; and a verdict and judgment having been rendered against Haywood for $>200, he sued out a writ of error.

E. Miller,

for the plaintiff in error, was stopped by the court.

H. Hogeboom,

contra, insisted, that the agreement was in the nature of a lease, and created a tenancy ; but whether it did or not, the defendant below had no right to enter the house, oust the plaintiff and remove his goods, so long as the written contract was not violated. But,

The contract was not in the nature of a lease. Whether the lower farm was intended as the place of labor or not, the relation between these parties was merely that of master and servant. True, it is assumed by the contract that the defendant below should furnish a house; and so does every master agree to furnish a house, or house-room, which is the same thing, for his domestic servants. It does not follow that,

p. 92

when he becomes dissatisfied and gives his servant warning to depart, and the latter refuses, that the master may not turn the servant away and remove his goods. To be sure, the master does this under the peril of paying damages for a breach of the contract with his servant, if he cannot show good grounds for dismissing him. But he is nota trespasser, whether he have good cause or not. Here the labor was to be on a salary of so much for the year. Suppose the plaintiff below had refused to work and held over the year ; could the defendant have distrained for rent, or sued for use and occupation 1 Or could the plaintiff have had ejectment for the ouster within the year ? Clearly neither ; and that shows there was no more a tenancy created, than there would be under any other retainer for a year’s service. The mistake lies in the form of action—in bringing trespass, and not assumpsit. The judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.