
    Landis v. The Mayagüez Electric Co.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mayagüez.
    No. 61.
    Decided April 13, 1904.
    Contracts — Termination of. — The parties are obligated to the faithful performance of the stipulations set forth in a contract, which can be terminated only in the manner and form agreed upon by both parties.
    
      Appeal. — -In oases in which the lower court lias erred in not granting the plaintiff the amount demanded in the complaint, the Supreme Court should reverse the judgment and render such decision as may be proper in accordance with law.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This declaratory action for the recovery of money came on to be heard, the same having been instituted in the District Conrt of Mayagüez by Edward E. Landis, who is represented in this conrt by Attorney Herbert E. Smith, against the Ma-yagüez Electric Company, which has failed to anoear. and the appeal being therefore conducted as in case of default. The matter is pending before us on an appeal prosecuted by the plaintiff from the judgment rendered by said court on the 27th of June of last year.
    On the 3d day of December, 1901, in New York, the Mayagüez Electric Company entered into a, contract with the appellant, Edward E. Landis, whereby it employed him in the capacity of electric superintendent of its machinery in the city of Mayagüez, Porto Eico, the obligations contracted by the appellant and the respondent company having been determined by said contract.
    According to said contract, the salary to be received by the appellant from the respondent was fixed at the sum of ninety dollars for each of the first three months of the year of the contract, and one hundred and thirty-five dollars for each of the last nine months, until the expiration of the period for which said contract was executed.
    In addition to the salary indicated, the respondent company agreed to pay appellant, upon the expiration of said contract, the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars provided the appellant had performed his duties in a manner satisfactory to the company, and in any event an additional 'sum sufficient to defray the expenses of the trip from Mayagüez to New York.
    
      By another condition of the contract in question the company reserved the right to terminate said contract at any time in case it was not satisfied with the performance by plaintiff of the obligations which he had entered into in the contract, but with the express condition that, in snch event, fifteen.days’ notice in writing was to he given him of snch determination, and upon the expiration of that period he was to be paid snch snm as might be dne him np to that time.
    The respondent company, without notide to the appellant, dismissed him from its employ without complying with the conditions of the contract, notwithstanding the statement made by the appellant expressing his wish to continue in the performance of said duties.
    The appellant thereupon instituted suit in the District Court of Mayagüez for the 'sum of $799, the amount of his salary from the 1st of May, 1902, to the 3d of December of the same year, less the sum of $206 earned by bim during said time, and for the expenses of the trip to New York, which latter sum he proved, by evidence presented to the court, amounted to $60, and for damages'.
    The defendant, having appeared in said action, failed to answer the complaint, and the default thereof having been duly entered, the appropriate evidence was taken and final judgment rendered in favor of the apnellant condemning the company 'to pay him the sum of $67.50 as salary for fifteen days and passage from Mayagüez to New York, without making any special imposition of costs.
    From this judgment plaintiff took an appeal to this court.
    , A day having been set for the hearing, the same took place on the 23d of March of the present year, at which Herbert S. Smith, Esq., as counsel for appellant, alleged such matters as lie deemed conducive to Ms rights, the respondent not having appeared.
    
      Mr. Smith, for appellant.
    The respondent did not appear.
   Me. Justice MacLeaey,

after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

A contract can be terminated only in the mánner agreed upon by the contracting parties, and it is the duty of each of them to comply with the conditions imposed upon him by the contract.

The trial court erred in not awarding to the plaintiff the amount sued for and in failing to fix the amount of the expenses of the trip, tMs matter being one of the grounds of complaint at issue in the case.

Inasmuch as the judgment of the trial court must be reversed for the errors suggested, we adjudge, in reversing the judgment of the District Court of Mayagüez, that we ought to condemn and do condemn the Mayagüez Electric Company to pay to Mr. Edward E. Landis the sum of $799, with legal interest from the date of the filing of his complaint until full payment has been made, together with costs of suit, the costs of the appeal being understood to be without special imposition.

Justices Eigueras and Sulzbacher concurred.

Mr. Justice Hernández dissented.

Chief Justice Quiñones did not sit at the hearing of this case.

Dissenting Opinion of

Mr. Justice Hernández.

The undersigned associate justice dissents from the conclusion of his learned colleagues in the determination of the foregoing appeal, and is of the opimon that it would be proper to affirm the judgment appealed from, which only condemns the Mayagüez Electric Company to pay $67.50 as salary during the fifteen days’ notice which should have been given to the plaintiff according to the contract, and to pay the latter’s passage from Mayagüez to New York, without special imposition of costs.

The judgment of the Mayagüéz court is in conformity with law, for although the non-fulfillment of an obligation carries with it indemnity for losses and damages, according to article 1068 of the Civil Code, it is necessary that such losses and damages should be derived from and be the direct consequence of the non-fulfillment; and in this case, although the said company failed to give notice in writing to the plaintiff Edward Landis, fifteen days in advance, to the effect that it was desirous of terminating the contract, having dismissed him from its service without complying with such formality, the damages accruing from the want of notice could not be other than that arising from the failure of Lan-dis to receive the salary due him for the fifteen days, together with traveling expenses from Mayagüez to New York, and never the loss of the salary which he would have received from the company if he had continued working for it during the period specified in the contract.

Sufficient evidence that the losses and damages claimed by Landis cannot be predicated upon the want of notice is found in the fact that after having been discharged he worked at the Gruánica Central and acted as a juror, having been compensated in both cases, and he himself excludes such compensation from the indemnity. If Landis failed to find other work it was not due to the omission of said notice, and the responsibility therefor is not imputable to the defendant company, which, upon dismissing him from its employ, left him free and unhampered to engage in other work whenever and wherever and in whatever manner he might choose.  