Where the employee's suit comes to trial before the expiration of the term of his contract, it is impossible to say exactly how. much the plaintiff may be able by his earnings to mitigate the damages caused by the defendant's wrong, and for this reason some courts restrict the plaintiff's recovery to the damages he has suffered up to the time of trial.28 Such a conclusion,

25 See McMullan v. Dickinson Co., 60 Minn. 166,62 N. W. 120,27 L. R. A. 409, 51 Am. St. 511.

26 See supra, Sec. 1297.

27 See supra, Sec. 1298.

28 Daret v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 81 Fed. 284; Schroder v. California, etc., Co., 95 Fed. 296; Fowler v. Armour, 24 Ala. 194; Marx v. Miller, 134 Ala. 347, 32 So. 765; Van Winkle o. Satter-field, 58 Ark. 617, 25 S. W. 1113, 23 L. R. A. 853 (see also Spenser Medicine Co. tr. Hall, 78 Ark. 336, 93 S. W. 985); Saxonia etc. Co. v. Cook, 7 Colo. 569, 4 Pac. 1111; Harris v. Moss, 112 Ga. 95, 37 S. E. 123; Mt. Hope Cemetery Assoc, v. Weidenmann, 139 111. 67, 28 N. E. 834 (see also

Doherty tr. Schipper, 250 HI. 128; 95 N. E. 74, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 557. Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 364; Pape p. Lath-rop, 18 Ind. App. 633, 46 N. E. 154; Wilson S. M. Co. v. Sloan, 50 Iowa, 367; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Offutt, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 301; Everson v. Powers, 89 N. Y. 527, 528, 42 Am. Rep. 319; Bassett v. French, 10 N. Y. Misc. 672, 31 N. Y. S. 667; Sommer v. Conhaim, 25 N. Y. Miso. 166, 54 N. Y. S. 146; Smith v. Lumber Co., 142 N. C. 26, 54 S. E. 788, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439 (but see Davis v. Dodge, 126 N. Y. App. Div. 469, 110 N. Y. S. 787); Pacific Exp. Co. v. Walters, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 355; Iitchenstein v. Brooks, 75 Tez. 196, 196, 12 S. W however, is wholly indefensible on principle. "The plaintiff's cause of action accrued when he was wrongfully discharged. His suit is not for wages, but for damages for the breach of his contract by the defendant. For this breach he can have but one action. In estimating his damages the jury have the right to consider the wages which he would have earned under the contract, the probability whether his life and that of the defendant would continue to the end of the contract period, whether the plaintiff's working ability would continue, and any other uncertainties growing out of the terms of the contract, as well as the likelihood that the plaintiff would be able to earn money in other work during the time. But it is not the law that damages that may be larger or smaller because of such uncertainties are not recoverable. The same kind of difficulty is encountered in the assessment of damages for personal injuries. AH the elements which bear upon the matters involved in the prognostication are to be considered by the jury, and from the evidence in each case they are to form an opinion upon which all can agree, and to which, unless it is set aside by the court, the parties must submit."29

975; Gordon v. Brewster, 7 Wis. 366; Stumm v. Western U. T. Co., 140 Wis. 528, 531, 122 N. W. 1032.

29 Gutter v. Gillette, 163 Mass. 95,97, 39N.E. 1010. The weight of authority supports this conclusion. Pierce v. Tennessee, etc., R. Co., 173 U. S. 1, 43 L Ed. 691,19 Sup. Ct. 336; American China, etc., Co. v. Boyd, 148 Fed. 258; Lewis v. Sherin, 194 Fed. 976; Beymour v. Oelrichs, 166 Cal. 782, 106 he. 88; Hamilton v. Love, 162 Ind. 64l, 43 N. E. 873, 71 Am. St. Rep. 384; Inland Steel Co. v. Harris, 49 Ind. App. 157; Bridgeford v. Meagher, 144 Ky. 479,139 S. W. 760; Sutherland v. Wyer, 67 Me. 64; Olmstead v. Bach, 78 Md. 132, 27 Atl. 601, 22 L. R. A. 74, 44 Am. St. Rep. 273; Maynard v. Royal Ac. Co., 200 Mass. 1, 86 N. E. 877; Webb v. Depew, 162 Mich. 698, 116 N. W. 560, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 125 Am. St. Rep. 431; Newhall v. Journal Printing Co., 106 Minn. 44,

117 N. W. 228,20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 899; Prichard v. Martin, 27 Miss. 306; Boland v. Glendale Quarry Co., 127 Mo. 520, 30 S. W. 161; Hicks v. National Surety Co., 186 Mo. App. 600, 172 S. W. 489; School District v. McDonald, 68 Neb. 610,94 N. W. 829; Moore v. Central Foundry Co., 68 N. J. L. 14, 52 Atl. 292; Davis v. Dodge, 126 N. Y. App. Div. 469, 110 N. Y. S. 787; James v. Allen Co., 44 Ohio St. 226, 6 N. E. 246,58 Am. Rep. 821; Morrison v. McAtee, 23 Ore. 630, 32 Pac. 400; Wilke v. Harrison, 166 Pa. 202, 30 Atl. 1125; Helfferich v. Sherman, 28 S. Dak. 627, 134 N. W. 816; Eastern, etc., R. Co. v. Staub, 7 Lea, 397; Tarbox v. Hartenstein, 4 Baxt. 78; Hassell v. Nutt, 14 Tex. 260; G. A. Kelly Plow Co. v. London (Tex. Civ. App.), 126 S. W. 974; Remelee v. Hall, 31 Vt. 582, 76 Am. Dec. 140; Rhoades v. Railway Co., 49 W. Va. 494, 39 S. E. 209, 87 Am. St. Rep.