## Facts

- Paul Ganas lived in Colonel James G. Darden’s household as a domestic servant and caretaker beginning in 1929.
- Ganas claimed Darden promised that if Ganas lived with and served him for the rest of Darden’s life, Ganas would be paid $20,000 from Darden’s estate upon Darden’s death.
- Ganas performed household and attendant services until late 1933.
- While Darden was ill, Ganas wrote a letter to Darden’s wife expressing improper affection and intentions toward her.
- After the letter was discovered, Darden ordered Ganas to leave the home; Ganas did not return.
- Darden died on November 18, 1933; Robert S. Bright qualified as executor of Darden’s estate.
- Ganas sued the executor on (1) an alleged special contract for the $20,000 testamentary payment and (2) common counts seeking recovery for services rendered (quantum meruit).
- The trial court directed a verdict for the executor on the special-contract count, submitted the common-counts theory to the jury, and the jury returned a verdict for Ganas for less than $20,000.
- The executor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ganas’s undisputed misconduct toward his employer’s wife constituted good and sufficient cause for discharge as a matter of law.
2. Whether a justified discharge for gross misconduct under an entire lifetime personal-service arrangement bars recovery on the alleged contract.
3. Whether common counts/quantum meruit may provide recovery when the same misconduct justifies discharge and defeats the servant’s entitlement to the promised compensation.

## Decision

- The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for Ganas and directed entry of judgment for the executor, without a new trial.
- The court held that the letter to Mrs. Darden established good and sufficient cause for discharge as a matter of law.
- The court treated the alleged lifetime-service arrangement as an entire contract conditioned on faithful service; a rightful discharge for gross misconduct barred contractual recovery.
- The court held that pleading and trying the case on common counts did not permit recovery that would defeat the legal effect of a justified discharge.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may plead common counts alongside a special contract and may recover on either theory according to the proof.
- When material facts are undisputed, whether there was good and sufficient cause for discharge is a question of law for the court.
- Personal-service employment in an employer’s household carries implied duties of loyalty and proper conduct toward the employer and the employer’s family; serious disloyalty or immoral conduct can justify immediate dismissal.
- Under an entire personal-service contract conditioned on faithful performance, a servant rightfully discharged for gross misconduct forfeits the right to the stipulated compensation.
- Quantum meruit cannot be used to obtain compensation that is effectively the same consideration barred by the servant’s justified discharge under an entire contract.

## Conclusion

Because Ganas’s undisputed misconduct supplied legal justification for his discharge and the asserted lifetime-service promise was conditioned on faithful performance, he could not recover the promised testamentary payment from the estate, and he could not obtain the same result by recasting the claim as quantum meruit under the common counts.


Bright v. Ganas, 171 Md. 493, 189 A. 427 (Md. 1937)