24 Mo.App. 529 (Mo.App. 1887), Frizelle v. Kaw Valley Paint & Oil Co.
|Citation:||24 Mo.App. 529|
|Opinion Judge:||HALL, J.|
|Party Name:||CHARLES S. FRIZELLE, Respondent, v. KAW VALLEY PAINT AND OIL COMPANY, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||BRYANT & HOLMES, for the appellant. LATHROP & SMITH, for the respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 08, 1887|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
APPEAL from Jackson Circuit Court, HON. JAMES H. SLOVER, Judge.
Statement of case bye the court.
This was an action, on account, for a balance of three hundred and ninety-three and thirty-seven one hundredths dollars.
The plaintiff, under a verbal contract with the defendant, as a traveling salesman, traveled for the defendant in Texas for the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, July, and August, 1885. The contract began and took effect on January 1, but the plaintiff did not begin work until the fifth or sixth of that month. From the time of beginning work until September 1, at which time he quit work, the plaintiff was traveling for the defendant. During the time mentioned the defendant paid to the plaintiff various sums of money amounting in the aggregate to $1,803.48. For the entire sum so paid to him the plaintiff accounted to the defendant's satisfaction, except in the respect to be now mentioned.
The defendant, under the agreement with plaintiff, was to pay his traveling expenses. The plaintiff claimed a credit for the sum of $1,396.85 paid out by him for traveling expenses. Included in said sum the plaintiff admitted there were these three items: three dollars per week for washing while traveling, fifty dollars contributed to a lumbermen's convention in San Antonio, and fifteen dollars for entertaining customers.
The sole question in the case was, was the plaintiff entitled to credit for said three items. The defendant computed the first item to amount to one hundred and eight dollars, on the basis of three dollars per week for thirty-six weeks. The aggregate amount of the three items according to such computation was one hundred and seventy-three dollars.
The defendant asked, but the court refused to instruct the jury that the plaintiff was not entitled to credit for said items.
The court submitted the question to the jury as to whether a uniform custom prevailed among the business community to charge and allow for such expenditures as those included in said items as traveling expenses.
The amount claimed by plaintiff was $393.37. The jury found in favor of plaintiff a verdict for the sum of two hundred and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP