39 Cal. 662 | Cal. | 1870
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The point of the contest was, whether the work performed by the plaintiff, on the schooners Stag Hound and Louise Morrison, was performed for the defendant or for Ilowlett. The Court found that the defendant employed the plaintiff to perform the work, and that the work was performed under such employment, ‘ he, the said defendant agreeing to pay
The plaintiff is not entitled to recover the sum of twenty-five dollars for his passage money from San Francisco to Coos Bay, for the reason that the complaint does not allege any consideration for the promise to pay that sum of money.
■ The plaintiff is not entitled to interest on his account previous to the filing of the complaint, January 5, 1869. There is no evidence in the case that Howlett was authorized, as the defendant’s agent, to certify or allow the plaintiff’s accounts.
The judgment exceeds the amount of the plaintiff’s account for his labor, and must be modified.
Cause remanded, with directions to the Court below to render judgment for the plaintiff for $456 91, with interest thereon from the 5th day of January, 1869.