BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Wm. Rose v. Earl of Fife [1806] UKHL 5_Paton_115 (25 April 1806) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1806/5_Paton_115.html Cite as: [1806] UKHL 5_Paton_115 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 115↓
(1806) 5 Paton 115
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, FROM 1753 TO 1813.
No. 10
House of Lords,
Subject_Factor — Remuneration — Discharge — Locatio Operarum. —
A factor received a fixed salary named in his factory. He continued for thirty years to act; and, on the duties being increased, the Earl converted the salary into a bond of annuity for life. During this whole period of his service, annual accounts were given in, including his salary of £100, and discharges mutually granted, without any other claim being made. In a claim made by him for remuneration for services unconnected with his factory, Held that he could not legally claim such remuneration.
Nov. 12, 1800.
This was a claim by Mr. Rose, the Earl of Fife's factor, made for remuneration for extra labour over and above the certain fixed allowance he had for the general management of the Earl's estates and affairs. The Earl seemed to be conscious that the factor was entitled to something over and above the small salary of £100. He had turned that salary into a bond of annuity for life. He had, in another deed, left him a legacy. Thereafter, he had granted a bond for £500; and, finally, this last and the legacy, were cancelled.
Nov. 28, 1800.
Mar. 7, 1801.
May. 21,——
June 5, ——
Jan. 13, 1802.
Jan. 11, 1803.
The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor, in which the whole circumstances of the case are set forth:
“Finds that the pursuer (appellant), during the great number of years that he was in the employment of the defender, acted under factories renewed at different periods, with a fixed annual salary, which was regularly advanced, till at last it was fixed at £100 Sterling per annum, besides his maintenance at bed and board in the defender's family; finds, that by the factory granted upon the 24th Jan. 1771, the power granted to the pursuer was so enlarged as to give him a very comprehensive and general management of the defender's whole estate; and that upon the 10th of December 1772, the defender granted a bond of annuity to the pursuer, converting the salary allowed him as factor, into £100 per annum for life, whether ho should remain in the defender's service or not; finds, that during the whole period of his continuing in the defender's employment, accounts were yearly fitted and settled between them, and discharges mutually granted; and, in these accounts, the pursuer was regularly credited for his said annual salary of £100, without mention or reservation of any claim for a further allowance, which the pursuer
Page: 116↓
might suppose to be due to him on account of extraordinary services, or that would lead the defender to understand that any further recompense was expected; finds that, in these circumstances, it is to be presumed that the pursuer rested satisfied with his salary converted into an annuity for life, and with such other advantages as he derived from his situation, or from the favour and goodwill of the defender; and, therefore, that whatever were the services or merits of the pursuer, he has not shown any sufficient legal grounds for supporting the claim in which he now insists; and, for these reasons, sustains the defences, assoilzies the defender from the present action, and decerns.”
On four representations, the only alteration made by the Lord Ordinary was, to reserve right to claim the annuity of £100, and quoad ultra adhered. On two several reclaiming petitions to the Court, the Lords adhered. *
_________________ Footnote _________________
* Opinions of the Judges:
Lord President Campbell said:—“This is a question as to recompense for services, and whether these are discharged or not There is no express discharge, and, in the circumstances of the case, a discharge of these ought not be implied. The relative situation of the parties is, in my opinion, to be attended to. There was great address on the one side. Confidence and dependence on the other. Expectations of future rewards being held out, how was the pursuer to act in such circumstances? The deed of 1772 is of an ambiguous nature—an act of mere will, and it is difficult to say whether it be testamentary or inter vivos, or whether it is revocable or otherwise, whether it would have been the ground of an action or not, whether in full of salary, or in addition thereto. It is clearly not a settlement of accounts, suggested and signed by the whole parties. But, in the first place, it grants a salary, while Mr. Rose continued factor, which was to be during Lord Fife's pleasure. 2. A legacy, to take place at death, and so far is testamentary, upon narrative of regard, and, consequently, is good. If he was dismissed, there was to be nothing due between dismissal and Lord Fife's death. This last point of the deed is worth nothing, and would yield no price if carried to market, unless the explanation in a cancelled deed in his own possession can be admitted. The Lord Ordinary's fourth interlocutor reserves all defences against it. It is not given as a remuneration for services, but lor love and favour; and, supposing it had, it would have related merely to his duty as manager of the estate only—not to extra trouble in the professional character of a law agent or political agent. The £500 bond afterwards executed, seems to me to have been meant for this, but it is now cancelled. In short, the pursuer goes on unrewarded for his services, and gets less than any country procurator
Page: 117↓
Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.
Pleaded for the Appellant,—1. When a professional man is employed to do the duties of his profession, and to bestow his skill, his labour, and his time, for the benefit of another, the contract of
locatio operarum is formed between them. There is no occasion for an express deed to bind them; the employment of itself, with the undertaking on the part of him whose services are made use of, necessarily imply a contract, which, as effectually as the most express
_________________ Footnote _________________ might have charged for doing the third part of the business. If, therefore, the supposed discharge be not clear and direct, we ought to consider the justice of the case before making it out from circumstances. The allowance given in a similar case to Mr. M'Murdo, is proof of what the Court would do here, if not barred by the alleged discharge. As to the words management of affairs, they allude to the new commission given him in January 1791, and not to those extensive extra matters in which he became to be employed chiefly
after that period. This could not then be in view, far less to discharge them. The £100 per annum, with a house and farm, was scrimp even for factor and chamberlain business; and the continuation of this sum during life was to make up for that deficiency in some degree, and also by way of inducement to his heirs to continue him. The £500 granted in 1773, which seems to have come in the place of the former deeds, or intended deeds of legacy, real or pretended, must have been understood by himself as the smallest consideration he could propose for the services performed
before that period, and still could not be meant in full of after services, which did not then exist. I therefore think he is foreclosed as to salary
qua factor, but not
quoad ultra.”
Lord Justice Clerk.—“I am for adhering.”
President Campbell's Session Papers, vol. 108.
Page: 118↓
Pleaded for the Respondent.—The salary or annuity, for which the appellant had credit in the accounts which were annually settled between the parties, for a period of thirty successive years, was allowed to and received by him, in full of all demands he could have for trouble in the respondent's affairs. Every circumstance demonstrates this. The mutual
Page: 119↓
After hearing counsel, it was
Ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors complained of be, and the same are hereby affirmed.
Counsel: For Appellant,
Wm. Adam,
John Clerk,
George Jos. Bell.
For Respondent,
T. Erskine,
Henry Erskine,
J. P. Grant.
Note.—Unreported in the Court of Session.
