to and to agreed with the plaintiff to transport from deliver to him, certain goods of the plaintiff, to wit (describe them), for the sum of Rs. 2. That, on the defendant the sum of Rs. day of 18, the plaintiff paid to the as an advance payment for said transportation, and otherwise performed all the conditions of said agreement on his part. 3. That the defendant has not transported said goods, nor delivered same to the plaintiff. demanded of the defendant repayment of said sum of Rs. advanced. 5. That he has not repaid the same, Form No. 83. BY SURETY AGAINST PRINCIPAL FOR PAYMENT ON A SECURITY BOND FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL. day of 18 at the request of the 2. That, on the defendant, the plaintiff executed a bond, a copy of which is hereto 4. That, on the day of 18 the plaintiff paid Rs. upon the said bond to the said 5. That defendant has not paid the same to plaintiff. at his request in the capacity of (clerk or otherwise). 2. That, for said services, the defendant promised to pay plaintiff a salary at the rate of (fifty rupees per week). 3. That defendant has not paid the same (add, except Rs. if plaintiff has been paid in part). day of 18 he 2. That from the said day, until the served the defendant as his clerk. 3. That defendant has not paid the said salary. Quantum Meruit.-Where there is an express contract, it must be performed in its entirety, or nothing can be claimed under it, and there is only room for a quantum meruit claim where no express contract has been made. Servant's Remedy.-Every master and employer has an undoubted right to dismiss his servant or agent at any time. After dismissal, whether wrongful or not, the servant cannot claim wages. The remedy for wrongful dismissal is by suit for damages sustained by the servant in consequence of the breach of the master's contract to employ ;† but a dismissed servant is entitled to wages for any broken period during which he may have served at the rate he was earning when dismissed.‡ * Skinner v. Jager, I. L. R., 6 All. 139. Seamen's Wages.-Civil Courts in this country (including Small Cause Courts) have jurisdiction to try suits by sailors against the master for wages, whatever the nationality of the vessel.* Limitation.—In suits for wages of a household servant, artisan, or labourer, one year from the time when the wages accrue due.† When a servant is appointed on a fixed monthly salary, and there is nothing to show that the salary is to be paid in advance, the limitation as to each month's salary commences from the time at which the salary became due, i.e., the end of the month, and not from the date of the dismissal.‡ In suits for seamen's wages, three years from the end of the voyage during which the wages are earned.§ 18 at , he (made sundry repairs on several articles of furniture) for the defendant at his request, but no express agreement was made as to the sum to be paid for such services. 2. That the said services were reasonably worth Rs. 3. That defendant has not paid the same. Limitation. In suits for the price of work done by the plaintiff at his request, when no time has been fixed for payment, three years from the time when the work is done. 2. That the defendant promised to pay plaintiff the sum of Rs. per tou as freight thereon (or that such transportation was reasonably worth Rs. ). 3. That defendant has not paid the same. Parties. In a suit for freight, the person to be sued is he in whom is the property in the goods, as it is on his account that the goods are carried; but where there is a promise, express or implied, on the part of the consignee to pay, he may be sued, though he may not be the owner of the goods, as the delivery of the goods by the carrier is a sufficient consideration for the promise." 1. That one A B rendered services (as clerk) to the defendant at his request in his office at from the 2. That such services were reasonably worth Rs. price agreed). day of (or allege 3. That the said A B was then, and is now, under eighteen years of age, and the minor child of this plaintiff. 4. That the defendant has not paid the same. * See Jesson v. Solty, 4 Taunt. 52; Moller v. Young, 4 E. & B. 755; 25 L. J., Q. B., 94, the paint, and painted defendant's house at his request. 2. That defendant promised to pay him Rs. 3. That he has not paid the same. he furnished therefor. Form No. 91. BY AN ATTORNEY FOR SERVICES. Plaintiff states: 1. That between the day of 18 the plaintiff performed services for the defendant, at his request, in prosecuting and defending certain suits (name them), and in drawing and engrossing various instruments in writing (describe them). and in counselling and advising the defendant regarding (mention general nature of business), and in attending in and about the business of the defendant. 2. That said services were reasonably worth Rs. 3. That defendant has not paid the same. When Cause of Action Arises.-In a suit for fees, the cause of action does not arise until the pleader has completely discharged his duty on the conduct of the suit, or his client has dispensed with his services.* Pleaders.-A pleader can sue for his fees, but not in Madras. There is nothing wrong in contracting for additional remuneration if successful in gaining a suit.§ Barristers.-The decision in Kennedy v. Brown governs all agreements made by members of the English Bar in that character.¶ * Buckapatnam v. Kajamiya, 6 Mad. H. C. R. 265. † Elias v. Sheogholam, 8. D. N. W. 1860, 314; Shivram Hari v. Arjun, I. L. R., 5 Bom. 258. Achamparambath v. W. 8. Gantz, I. L. R., 3 Mad. 139. § Khajeh Ameenoodeen v. Mahomed Yaheea, S. D. N. W. 1860, 405; In re Attorneys' Act, I. Ch. Div. 573. || 13 C. B., N. S., 677; 32 L. J., C. P., 137. Achamparambath v. Gantz, supra. F. P.-10 |