Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. v. Toponce,
152 U.S. 405 (1894)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. v. Toponce, 152 U.S. 405 (1894)

Corinne Mill, Canal and Stock Company v. Toponce

No. 257

Submitted March 6, 1894

Decided March 19, 1894

152 U.S. 405


The jury having in this case practically affirmed the truth of the plaintiff's story, this Court accepts the result.

When services in the management of a farm and household in Utah are performed under a general retainer, without any express agreement as to the

Page 152 U. S. 406

time or measure of compensation or the term of the employment, and such services continue for a series of years, no payments being made, and there is a mutual, open and current account between the manager and the proprietors into which the matter of compensation enters as one of the items, the cause of action must be deemed to have accrued at the date of the last item proved in the account on either side.

The facts in this case are as follows: on June 9, 1888, the defendant in error, as plaintiff, commenced his action in the District Court of the County of Weber, in the Territory of Utah. His complaint consisted of five counts, the first, for moneys paid out for the defendant, the second for feeding and caring for certain stock of the defendant, the third for his services as general manager of the defendant, the fourth and fifth, respectively, a claim for work and labor, and one for board alleged to have been due from defendant to Lea Owsley, and by him assigned to plaintiff.

The defendant answered, denying all but the claim in the fourth count of the complaint, and pleading also certain counterclaims. The case went to trial before a jury, which returned both a special and a general verdict, and on such verdicts judgment was rendered March 19, 1889, in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $11,339.56. Subsequently, on July 12, 1890, this judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory, and thereupon defendant sued out this writ of error.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.