Charles Woodley v. . W. E. Bond

DicK, J. The plaintiff contracted to serve the- testator of the defendant as an overseer on a farm for one year. Before the term of service had expired, the said, testator without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, sold and delivered possession of said farm to AugustusjjHolley, and left the farm a few days after the sale. The agreement between the plaintiff and testator was a personal contract, and its benefits and obligations did not in any respect pass with the land to Holley. Various considerations besides the wages agreed upon, may have induced the plaintiff not to enter into the contract. It may be that he would not served Iiolley at any price. The contract consisted of mutual engagements between the parties which established the relation of employer and overseer, and as this relation *398 •was ended by the action of the testator, the plaintiff was at ■liberty to regard the contract as rescinded, leave the farm, ■and bring suit upon a quantum meruit for seryices rendered ■•at the instance and request of testator. 2 Parsons on Cont. 32, 523, 678. Robeson v. Drummond, 2 B & Ad. 303. Planche v. Colborn, 8 Bing. 14- 2 Smith L. E. 18, 19, (notes on Cutler v. Powell.) The principles involved in this case are so well founded in ■natural justice, that they need no further discussion or citation of authority. There is no error. 'Per Curiam. ' Judgment affirmed.