Overton v. SimonOverton v. Simon
The plaintiff claims $160 for having superintended the moulding and burning of 160,000 bricks, at the rate of $1 per thousand.
Eor answer, the defendant аvers that the plaintiff was employed by his overseer, John Hollander, to superintend the moulding and burning of a brick kiln, which he had instructed his overseer to make on his plantation for the purpose оf constructing extensive works and improvements thereon, but thаt, owing to the defective manner in which the work was done, the kiln was a failure, and that he was thereby put to great exрense, trouble and inconvenience in executing the briсk woi’ks which the said brick kiln was intended for, by reason of which he hаs sustained damages in the sum of $1200, which he claims in re-convention.
The plaintiff’s claim being for less than $300, we are not at liberty to examine the correctness of the judgment appеaled from, so far as it is unconnected with the reconvеntional claim. Assuming then, that the plaintiff rendered services undеr his contract to the extent allowed and recognizеd by the judgment appealed from, our enquiry is confined exclusively to the question of damages. The obligation and liability of the plaintiff are not to be tested by the assumption of а contract to deliver any given number of bricks; he was merely employed to assist and superintend the execution of a work undertaken by the overseer of the defendant in accordance with his instructions. But the evidence establishеs beyond a doubt that the kiln turned out badly, a large portion оf the bricks being unfit for use; and it does not appear from the evidence that this failure on the part of the plaintiff wаs attributable to any unforeseen accident or uncontrolable event. The plaintiff is therefore responsiblе for any direct loss or injury which the defendant may have sustained from his negligence or his want of skill. It is shown, that about 20 slaves belоnging to the defendant were employed by Overton during nearly two months, and the hire
It is therefore ordered that, so far as relates to the judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $75, the appeal be dismissed, and that as relates to the re-conventional demand of the defendant, the judgment appealed from be reversed, and that the defendant, Edward, Simon, do have and recover of the plaintiff, James L. Overton, the sum of $350 with costs of suit, together with the costs of this appeal.