Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an appeal from the Sheriff-court of Renfrew.

In December 1869 the defenders, who are bleachers and finishers at Pollokshaws, entered into a contract with the pursuer by the following missive letters:—

“ 3d Dec. 1869.

“Gentlemen,—I hereby agree to come to you to take charge of your bleaching works at River-Bank, Pollokshaws, on the following conditions:—

1 st, I shall go on the 26th December to the Albyn Mills, So. York Street, and I remain there in the bleachg. department, for the purpose of acquainting myself thoroughly with the system on which your goods are bleached and finished. Whilst there my hours of attendance to be from 6 a.m. till 6 p.m., and I promise to acquaint myself thoroughly with each department of bleaching and finishing, so that I may be able to manage your works satisfactorily. When my month at the Albyn Mill is over, I shall go to Pollokshaws and start your works, and I bind myself to give you a good production from each department, and to finish your goods to your satisfaction.

2 d, In consideration of my so doing you are to pay me at the rate of £120 for the first three months, from the date of my going to Riverbank. If at the end of this time you are satisfied with me you are to give me an engagement to the end of 1870, and to pay me at the rate of One hundred and fifty pounds stg. for the remaining nine months; should you not be satisfied with me our arrangement to terminate at the end of the three months after I have started your works.

Should you give me an engagement to the end of the year you are to pay me for the month I have spent at the Albyn Mill, but should I leave at the end of the three months, owing to your being dissatisfied with my management, nothing to be paid me for that month.—Waiting your acceptance, I am, &c. R. H. Stewart,”

Page: 24↓

“Mr R. S. Stewart,

Dear Sir,—We have received your letter of engagement, of date 3d December, and hereby accept of the same. Yours truly, J. J. Cochrane, & Co.”

In terms of this agreement the pursuer went on 26th December 1869 for one month to the Albyn Works, and thereafter entered on his duties at Riverbank. Owing, however, to the machinery not being ready the works were not started till the middle of March. The pursuer continued to act as manager till the 3d October 1870, when he was dismissed in terms of the following letter:—

“Mr Stewart,

Dear Sir,—As our work is not managed to our satisfaction just now, neither in regard to the finish of our goods or the production, we are obliged to give you intimation that you will cease to be our manager at the end of September 1870.—We are, Dear Sir, Yours truly,

J. J. Cochrane & Co.

Mr Stewart then raised the present action, claiming payment of his salary from 26th December 1869 to 26th December 1870, at the rate of £120 per annum for the first three months, and of £150 for the succeeding nine months, under deduction of £80 received to account of his salary. The summons also concluded for £100 damages for wrongful dismissal.

The defenders maintained that, by the true construction of the letter of agreement, the engagement at Riverbank was for three months only, with an option to the defenders to renew the contract for nine months if they were satisfied with the pursuer's management; that the contract had not been renewed; but, on the contrary, they averred that on the 30th April 1870 they had intimated their dissatisfaction to the pursuer, and that they could not give him the engagement contemplated, but told him that if he chose to remain on some time longer he might do so on the understanding that his employers were under no obligation to keep him for any particular period, and that his salary was to be at the rate of £120 per annum. The defenders further averred that the pursuer's management had been inefficient.

Parties having been allowed a proof of their averments, it appeared from the evidence that throughout the whole period of the pursuer's management the defenders were constantly complaining of the bad way in which the goods were finished, whereas the pursuer maintained (and the evidence supported this view) that the faults complained of were due to defective machinery and the bad quality of the water supplied. The alleged conversation on the 30th April was deponed to by Mr James Cochrane, one of the defenders. The pursuer denied that any such conversation took place.

The Sheriff-Substitute ( Cowan) pronounced the following interlocutor:—“Finds, in fact, that, in terms of the letter No. 4/107 of process, (that of 3d December 1869) pursuer went, on 26th December 1869, for one month to the Albion works, and on the expiry of said month entered on the duties of manager at the defenders' works of Riverbank; finds that when he so entered on his duties there the works had for some time been stopped, and he required to start them; finds that the pursuer did start the defenders' works, and continued to act as manager of defenders' works down to 3d October 1870, when he was dismissed, in terms of the letter No. 3/5 of process; finds that at the end of three months from pursuer starting the works at Riverbank the defenders did not dismiss the pursuer from their employment, or make any new arrangement with him, nor did the pursuer on his part stipulate for any new engagement; finds that the pursuer has sought for, but been unable to obtain, any new engagement with other parties prior to 26th December 1870; finds that pursuer has failed to prove any special damage, owing to the manner of his dismissal; finds that pursuer has all along discharged his duties to the best of his ability; has been careful in his management, attentive to his duties, and has shown himself in every way desirous of meeting the views of his employers; finds that the faults complained of in the goods finished at Riverbank are due to the machinery, the water, and changes among the hands during the course of his management; finds that the balance of salary due to pursuer is sixty pounds sterling: Finds, in law, that on a sound construction of the document in process, it imports an engagement to the end of 1870, with a break in the option of either party at the end of three months from pursuer's going to Riverbank. That, in the absence of any alteration of the terms of agreement at the end of the three months, the parties must be held to have silently covenanted to go on upon the footing expressed in that document, which must therefore regulate the agreement between parties; finds, in the circumstances above stated, that the pursuer is entitled to his salary down to 26th December 1870, as concluded for; further, that he is not entitled to a further claim for damages, there being no special circumstances of hardship, and no special damage proved. Therefore, decerns against the defenders for the sum of sixty pounds sterling, and finds them liable in expenses.”

On appeal, the Sheriff ( Fraser) recalled the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute:—“Finds that on 30th April 1870 the defender James Cochrane intimated to the pursuer that the defenders were dissatisfied with him, and that they did not mean to enter into an engagement with him to continue as manager for the remaining months of 1870, but that if he chose to remain upon trial the defenders agreed to retain him upon that footing, but not as giving him an engagement to the end of 1870 at an increased salary, as contemplated by the original contract; finds that this was an engagement for service terminable at the will of either party at any time, or at least after reasonable notice; finds that the pursuer did remain upon this footing down to the 3d of October 1870, when he left the service of the defenders, in consequence of having been dismissed by them after notice given; finds that the notice given was reasonable notice, and that the defenders had power so to dismiss the pursuer. Secundo—In reference to the defence of dismissal founded upon alleged inefficiency of general management, and want of care and attention on the part of the pursuer, finds this defence unfounded, and, on the contrary, finds that the pursuer did devote himself constantly to the service of the defenders, and faithfully gave them the benefit of all the skill of which he was master, and the extent of which the defenders knew before they engaged him. Tertio—Finds that the pursuer is entitled to payment for the month's service at Albion Mills, and for the whole subsequent period down to 3d October 1870, but at no higher rate than at £120 per annum; and that thus he was entitled to £92, 7s. 11 1 4d., to which there has been paid to account, as admitted in the summons,

Page: 25↓

£80, leaving a balance due to the pursuer of £12, 7s.11d.; decerns against the defenders for the said sum of £12, 7s. 11 1 4d., and assoilzies them from the whole other conclusions of the summons; finds neither party entitled to expenses.”

The pursuer appealed.

Watson and D. Crichton for him,

Solicitor-General and R. V. Campbell for the defenders.

At advising—