iff at the rate of $ 2. That for said services the defendant promised to pay the plaintper month, amounting in all to $ reasonably worth the sum of $ that said services were became due on the , [or, ], which 3. That the defendant has not paid the same, nor any part thereof. Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for the and plaintiff's costs of suit. sum of $ [Verification.] A. B., Attorney for plaintiff. FORM No. 631-To recover balance upon an executed contract for services. (From Donegan v. Houston, 5 Cal. App. 626; 90 Pac. 1073.), [Title of court and cause.] Plaintiff complains of defendants, and alleges: That within the two years last past, he did grading and excavating for the defendants, for which they agreed to pay him the sum of $6,173; that the defendants have paid him on account thereof the sum of $3,938.75; that, although often requested so to do, they have not paid him any further sum thereon; that there is now due and owing the plaintiff from defendants the sum of $2,234.25, with interest thereon from May 26, 1903. Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendants for the sum of $2,234.25, and costs of suit. Chas. H. McFarland, [Verification.] Attorney for plaintiff. FORM No. 632-By employee against employer, for failure to fulfil contract of employment. [Title of court and cause.] Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: day of 1. That on the 19 , plaintiff and defendant made a contract of employment, the terms of which are as follows: [Here state the contract made.] 2. That plaintiff entered upon his employment under said contract, and duly performed all the conditions thereof on his part until the defendant refused, as hereinafter mentioned, to permit him to continue further in his employment thereunder; that plaintiff has always been, and is now, ready and willing to perform all the terms, requirements, and conditions of said contract on his part, and has heretofore [repeatedly] offered to perform the same. Jury's Pl.-80. day of 3. That the defendant, on the 19 , refused, and has ever since refused, to allow plaintiff to perform the duties and conditions on his part of said contract of employment, and refuses to pay him thereunder or therefor, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 633-By employer against employee, for damages caused by inefficient services. [Title of court and cause.] Plaintiff complains of defendant, and for cause of action alleges: made a contract of employment, the terms of which are as follows: [Here state the contract made.] 2. That to procure plaintiff to make such contract of employment with defendant the defendant stated to plaintiff that defendant was a skilled and careful worker, to wit, a [here state capacity in which the defendant was to serve]; that, confiding in the truth of such representations, plaintiff entered into said contract of employment with defendant, and intrusted to him said work in the capacity of [here state]. 3. That the defendant was not a skilled or careful worker, in this: [Here state in what the defendant was inefficient]; that while he was in the employment of plaintiff under said contract defendant so unskilfully [and carelessly] performed said work that he caused injury to the plaintiff in the following respect, to wit: [Here specify damage resulting from said inefficient acts of the defendant], to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $ Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for $ and plaintiff's costs of suit. [Verification.] A. B., Attorney for plaintiff. FORM No. 634-Against employee, for refusal to serve. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. [As in paragraph 1 of preceding form.] 2. That the plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions of said contract on his part to be performed. day of 3. That the defendant entered upon the plaintiff's service on said day, but afterwards, on the 19 , abandoned said service, and has refused to serve the plaintiff, as aforesaid, [or the defendant wholly refused to enter said service,] to the plaintiff's damage in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 635-By auctioneer, upon an account for work and services. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff on an account for work, labor, and services of the plaintiff as [auctioneer, in selling and disposing of, and endeavoring to dispose of, by auction and otherwise, divers goods, chattels, and effects for defendant], performed at the instance and request of the defendant, between the day of sum of $ 19 and the day of 19 in the 2. That said sum has not been paid, nor any part thereof. [Concluding part.] FORM No. 636-For work, etc., comprising different items. (Adapted from Nelson v. Henrichsen, 31 Utah 191; 87 Pac. 267.) [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of defendant, and alleges: 19, plaintiff, at defendant's instance and request, performed work and labor as a miner, in and upon the defendant's mining claims situated at ; that said work upon said claims was performed in the capacity of foreman and manager thereof; that in the course of the plaintiff's said employment, during said time, plaintiff paid moneys for defendant's use and at his request in the management and operation of the said mining claims, amounting to $ ; that the labor performed, services rendered, and moneys paid out by the plaintiff at defendant's request, as aforesaid, in the aggregate, amount to and were of the value of $ ; that no part of the said sum of $ has been paid to the plaintiff, except the due, payable, and leaving a balance of $ sum of $ Wherefore, the plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant for the sum of $ and costs of suit. [Verification.] Knox & Fennemore, Attorneys for plaintiff. FORM No. 637-For services rendered by husband and wife. (In Mullenary v. Burton, 3 Cal. App. 263; 84 Pac. 159.)1 [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and for cause of action alleges: 1. That on the 1st day of January, 1889, the defendant employed plaintiff to superintend his Rancho Jesus Maria, situated in Santa Barbara County, state of California, and agreed to pay plaintiff for his services as such superintendent at the rate of $600 per annum, and to furnish board to plaintiff and his family; that under and by virtue of said contract of employment the plaintiff continued to work for defendant until the 1st day of February, 1895, when said contract of employment was terminated. 2. That the defendant paid to the plaintiff on account of said services the sum of $1,624, and no more; that there remains due and unpaid from defendant to plaintiff the sum of $2,026, with interest thereon from the 1st day of February, 1895, at the rate of seven per cent per annum. For a separate and additional cause of action, the plaintiff alleges: That for six years next prior to February 1, 1895, plaintiff's wife performed services for the defendant, at his request, by cooking for the servants the defendant had employed on his Rancho Jesus Maria, situated in said county and state, for which services defendant agreed to pay the reasonable value thereof; that the reasonable value of said services was and is $20 per month; that the defendant has paid neither the whole nor any part of the value of said services, viz. $1,440, which sum has remained, and now remains, wholly due and unpaid since the 1st day of February, 1895, together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum; that the first employment of plaintiff and his wife was continued from the date of 1 By the answer in the case from the record in which form No. 637 is taken, the defendant pleads the statute of limitations as to a portion of the claims declared upon. The judgment was modified by striking out the amount as to all services to which the bar of the statute was complete, and affirming the judgment as so modified: See Mullenary v. Burton, 3 Cal. App. 263, 84 Pac. 159, 160. its commencement until the date of termination thereof, to wit, the 1st day of February, 1895; that on or about the 5th day of February, 1895, defendant departed from the state of California; that plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that the defendant has not returned to the state of California, and upon such information and belief further avers that the defendant has been absent from the state of California since the 5th day of February, 1895. Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for the sum of $3,436, with interest thereon from the 1st day of February, 1895, at the rate of seven per cent per annum, and for costs of suit herein. B. F. Thomas, Attorney for plaintiff. [Verification.] FORM No. 638-By machinist, for services and materials furnished. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. That from the 19 at day of 19 to the day of the plaintiff rendered services to the defendant, which said services were performed at the request of the defendant, in repairing the machinery in the mill of the defendant, and for materials and other necessary things furnished by this plaintiff in and about said work, on the like request. 2. That the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff therefor the sum of $ but he has not paid the same, nor any part thereof. [Concluding part.] FORM No. 639-By physician, for services. $ [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. That the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of , upon an account for the services of the plaintiff, rendered as a physician for defendant, at his request, between the 19 and the day of day of 19, in and about the treatment of defendant, and of members of his family, and for divers medicines and other articles provided and administered in that behalf by the plaintiff for defendant, and at his like request, which sum became due and payable from the defendant to the plaintiff on the day of 19 |
