Robert Puncheon v. The Trustee for the Creditors of James Haig and Company
Date: 17 November 1790 Case No. No 83.
Upon a master's bankruptcy, the servant's claim for wages is subject to deduction of what was otherwise earned by him.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Puncheon, in spring 1784, was hired for seven years as a machinist or engineer, by James Haig and Company, who carried on an extensive distillery. His salary, during the three last years of his engagement, was to be L.150 per annum.
Haig and Company stopped payment in April 1788. Puncheon, however,, remained unemployed till the month of September following, when he entered into a new service.
In the distribution of the effects which belonged to the bankrupts, Puncheon having made a claim for his salaries during the unexpired term, the trustee for the other creditors objected, and
Pleaded, Whatever the stipulated endurance of the agreement between a master and his servant may be, it is generally understood, that, in case of the disability of either of the parties to fulfil their engagements, the contract is at an end at the subsequent term. It is evidently just, that this should be the rule;—as, on the one hand, it would be extremely unjust, when a servant, from bad health, has become unable to discharge his duty, if his master could for that reason with-hold the wages previously earned; so, when a similar misfortune befalls the master, it would be not less unjust, were the servant's claims to suffer no limitation. The claim thus arising, either to master or servant, ought to be restricted to the actual damage; and therefore, all that can in this case be demanded, is the difference between the wages formerly stipulated and those actually earned.
Answered, In the ordinary case of master and servant, it being understood that each party, after reasonable notice, may give up the bargain at the ensuing term, it is just that the death or disability of any of them should be attended with the same effect. But where, by special agreement, the obligations of the parties are to endure for an unusual period, the conditions of the bargain are to be accurately fulfilled. There, it is to be presumed, that the certainty of employment was in the view of both parties; and therefore, to disappoint the servant of that advantage, without an increase of his wages, would be unjust; and if, without seeking any new employment, he might have demanded his wages during the whole term, it would be no less inconsistent with expediency than with justice, should the consequence of his following a more industrious line of conduct be favourable, not to him, but to his former employer only. Voet. ad Dig. lib. 19. tit. 22. § 27.
The Lord Ordinary found “Puncheon entitled to his full salaries.”
But after advising a reclaiming petition, with answers,
The Court being of opinion, That in cases of this kind, the claim of a servant was for damages only.
The Lords “altered the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and remitted the cause to his Lordship,” for the purpose of adjusting the extent of Puncheon's claim.
Ordinary, Lord Justice-Clerk.Act. Wylde.Alt. Maconochie.Clerk, Menzies.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 233. Fac. Col. No 148. p. 297.
