
    
      Henry Suber vs. H. D. Vanlew.
    
    1. Where an overseer employed for the entire year, left his employer’s service before its expiration, for no other reason, as he said, than because a negro woman of the plantation, in the absence of his wife, had informed the lady of his employer, that he (the overseer) was too familiar with some negro woman of the place and that she (the employer’s wife) had believed it. It was held that such reason formed no justifying cause for breaking his contract, and the jury having found for the plaintiff, a new trial was ordered.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J. at Newberry, Spring Term, 1843.
    Assumpsit formverseer’s wages. The plaintiff who had been the defendant’s overseer in 1838, for $300 and his board, was married about Christmas 1838, and continued in the employment of defendant the greater part of 1839, living in a separate house instead of eating at the defendant’s table, as he had done in 1838, and discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of the plaintiff. About the last of Oct. 1839, the plaintiff quit the defendant’s employment ; and as he shewed no reason for quitting, but had simply proved services rendered, and the value of them, the defendant moved for a non-suit, which was refused, because no special contract had appeared, and upon the common count for work and labor, the evidence authorized a recovery.
    In defence, the defendant then offered a witness who met the plaintiff as he was quitting. The plaintiff then said that he had been engaged as overseer for the year— that the defendant was at Maybinton, (in Newberry District,) and the plaintiff’s wife somewhere from home on a visit — that he (the plaintiff) had quit the place, because a negro woman had told the wife of defendant, that the plaintiff was too familliar with her or some other woman of the place, and the defendant’s wife had believed the tale — and that he felt above any such thing.
    The presiding judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, if he quit without sufficient cause, and that they were to judge as to the sufficiency of the cause assigned.
    The jury found for the plaintiff $240.
    The defendant appealed, on the following grounds, viz :
    1st, Because the evidence, admitting it all to be true, is not sufficient in law to sustain the verdict.
    ' 2d. Because the reason stated by the plaintiff for quitting the defendant’s employment, does not amount in law to sufficient justification, on the part of the plaintiff, to put an end to the contract.
    Herndon, for the motion. Fair, contra.
   Curia, per

Richardson, J.

It does not remain now to be adjudged that the contract for personal services on the part of the overseer of a plantation, expressly for a year, is for the entire year; and on that of his employer to pay wages for the same time, 4 M’C. 226; 1 N & M’C. 284, Cox vs. Adams. That if the employer discharges his overseer within the year, without justifying cause, he must still pay him his wages for the entire year; and that if the overseer departs in like manner, without justifying cause, he loses all his wages, 4 M’C. 246.

But in general, where planter and overseer separate, the causes assigned, are so uncertain that the conclusion is drawn, that they separated, by mutual consent, or through equal faults; and wages, for the time of actual service are allowed.

Under this qualification, compromise verdicts, have been frequent. 2 Mill. Con. Rep. 404, 4 M’C. 26, 246, 249 ; 2 H. M. 477.

But the principle of an entire contract, where such has been entered into, must be preserved, and its necessary consequences; and we have to apply them to the case before the Court. Mr. Súber had been engaged, as he declared, for the year. His services were not complained of. But, in October, during the absence of his employer, he left his employment. Because, as he said, “in the absence of Mrs. Súber, a negro woman had informed Mrs. Vanlew, that he was too familiar with some negro woman of the plantation; and Mrs. Vanlew had believed the tale, and he felt above any such thing.”

How such tittle tattle of a negro woman, and the inward belief of her mistress, would form any justifying cause for Mr. Súber to break his contract, and desert his employer, without further enquiry, does not strike our understanding, and, as we sit here to enforce the laws of the land, a new trial is ordered.

Evans, Butler, and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.

O’Neall, J. dissented.  