Keith v. Kottas

1. Master and servant ? Question of extra pay for extra work. In a case where plaintiff sought to recover additional pay for extra work the rule is that if the extra work is of different character than the regular work then there is an implication that extra pay is intended but if the extra work is of similar character as the regular work then it is presumed that the stipulated wage takes care of the extra work and it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the fact that extra pay was intended. 2. Master and servant ? Evidence of extra pay insufficient. The evidence that decedent agreed to pay plaintiff overtime pay for services performed was insufficient for the jury. 3. Contracts ? Basis of implied contract. The obligation under an implied contract to make payment arises not from the consent of the parties but from the law of natural justice and equity, and is based upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 4. Contracts ? Express contract negatives implied contract. Where parties have entered into an express contract covering the situation there can be no implied contract covering the same subject matter. 5. Master and servant ? Trial court not warranted in applying doctrine of implied promise. The fact that the administrator and the heirs of decedent denied the existence of a partnership between the decedent and the plaintiff and the fact that the plaintiff found it impossible to prove the existence of the partnership alleged did not warrant the trial court in implying a promise to pay plaintiff the reasonable value of his overtime work in managing the business owned by the decedent.