CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1898. PIERCE v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON AND RAIL ROAD COMPANY. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 174. Argued and submitted January 19, 20, 1899. Decided February 20, 1899. An agreement in writing between a mining company and a machinist stated 173 1 Led 591 f178 15 Statement of the Case. elect to treat the contract as absolutely and finally broken by the company, and, in an action against it upon the contract, to introduce evidence of his age, health and expectancy of life, and, if his disability was permanent, to recover the full value of the contract to him at the time of the breach, including all that he would have received in the future as well as in the past if the contract had been kept, deducting however any sum that he might have earned already or might thereafter earn, as well as the amount of any loss that the defendant sustained by the loss of his services without its fault. THIS was an action brought January 22, 1892, in the circuit court of Jefferson County in the State of Alabama, by Frank H. Pierce, a citizen of the State of Alabama, against the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Tennessee, doing business in the State of Alabama, upon a written contract, signed by the parties, and in the following terms: "Pratt Mines, Ala. 4th June, 1890. Whereas I, F. H. Pierce, while in the employ of the Tennessee Iron, Coal and Railroad Company, Pratt Mines Division, as a machinist, was seriously hurt by a trip of tram cars on the main slope of the mine known as Slope No. 2, and operated by the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, under circumstances which I claim render the said company liable to me for damages; but whereas they disclaim any liability for said accident or the injuries to me resulting from same; and both parties being desirous of settling and compromising said matter; and whereas the said Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company did make me a proposition on the day of November, 1888, said accident having occurred on the 21st day of May, 1888, that they would furnish me such supplies from the commissary at No. 2 prison, as I might choose to take, pay me regular wages while I was disabled, and give me my coal and wood for fuel at my dwelling, and the benefit of the convict garden at No. 2; and whereas said proposition was accepted by me, and carried out by the said company; and whereas in May, 1889, after I had resumed work, a further proposition was made to me to give me work, such as I could do, paying me therefor the wages paid me before said accident, that is, $60 per month, and in addition free house rent, [or in lieu of Statement of the Case, house rent a certain amount of supplies from the convict commissary at No. 2 prison, which supplies were to amount to about the sum paid by ine for house rent;] and whereas said agreement has been faithfully kept by both parties; and whereas on the 4th day of June, 1890, it is mutually agreed between myself and the said company that it will be better to give me the house rent than the supplies of about equal amount from the commissary; now therefore it is agreed, in view of the above propositions, which have been faithfully carried out, that my wages from this date are to be $65 a month, and in addition I am to have, free of charge, my coal and wood necessary for my household use at my dwelling, and the same benefit from the garden as is had by others who are allowed the garden privilege; and I on my part agree and bind myself to release the said company from any and all liability for said accident, or from the injuries resulting to me from it or from the effects of it, and agree that this is to be a full and satisfactory settlement of any and all claims which I might have against said company." The complaint set out the contract, except the clause above printed in brackets; and alleged that by this contract the defendant became liable to pay the plaintiff monthly during his life the wages therein stipulated, and to furnish him with coal and wood and allow him the privilege of the garden, as therein agreed; that the plaintiff had always been ready and offered to do for the defendant such work given to him as he was able to do, and had labored at the same for such reasonable time as he was able to work and bound to work under this contract; that by the injuries received by him from the accident mentioned therein he was permanently disabled in the use of his legs and hands, and otherwise so injured as to be incapacitated to do more work than he had done and had offered to do; but that the defendant, without any reasonable ground for so doing, abandoned the contract and refused to carry it out, claiming that the defendant was under no obligation to pay to the plaintiff the wages therein stipulated longer than suited its pleasure; and had wholly and purposely disregarded and refused to abide by the obligations of the contract Statement of the Case. for the period of six months next before the commencement of the suit, and had entirely abandoned the contract and discharged the plaintiff from its service. The plaintiff claimed damages, in the sum of $50,000, for the defendant's breach and abandonment of the contract. The defendant demurred to the complaint, upon the ground that the contract set out therein was one of hiring, terminable at the will of either party, and not one of hiring for life, as alleged in the complaint; and that it appeared, from the obligations of the complaint, that the defendant, in terminating the contract of hiring, had only exercised its legal right under the contract. The court sustained the demurrer, and, the plaintiff declining to amend his complaint, rendered judgment for the defendant; and the plaintiff on February 21, 1894, appealed from that judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The record transmitted to this court does not show any further proceedings in the Supreme Court of Alabama. But the official reports of its decisions show that at November term, 1895, it reversed that judgment, and remanded the case to the county court. Pierce v. Tennessee Coal Co., 110 Alabama, 533. And the record before this court necessarily implies that fact, by setting forth that in March, 1896, on motion of the defendant, suggesting that from prejudice and local influence it would not be able to obtain justice in the state courts, the case was removed from the county court into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Northern District of Alabama; and a motion to remand the case to the state court was made by the plaintiff (on what ground did not appear in the record) and was overruled. In the Circuit Court of the United States, on January 4, 1897, the following proceedings took place: The demurrer to the complaint was renewed by the defendant, and overruled by the court. The plaintiff then amended his complaint by inserting, in the copy of the contract set forth therein, the words above printed in brackets; and a demurrer to the amended complaint was filed and overruled. In answer to this complaint the defendant filed two pleas: 1st. A denial of each and every allegation of the complaint; 2d. "The de |