Walsh v. Atlantic Research Associates
Decision Date | 26 February 1947 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | EDMUND F. WALSH v. ATLANTIC RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.,& others. |
November 7, 1946.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., LUMMUS, QUA & SPALDING, JJ.
Contract, Of employment, Performance and breach, Termination Construction. Agency, Agent's compensation, Agent's duty of fidelity. Equity Jurisdiction, Accounting Plaintiff's clean hands. Partnership, What constitutes. Equity Pleading and Practice, Parties. Trustee Process. Words, "Material default."
Under provisions of a contract of employment that the employee was to devote all his time, attention and energy to the duties of the employment; that his entire compensation was to consist of certain rights to share in the profits of the employer's business and to have an account kept during the employment and adjusted at the termination thereof; for termination of the employment in various contingencies, including default by either party; and that upon "any" termination the balance due the employee upon the adjusted account should be paid to him by the employer forthwith, the employee was not precluded from obtaining in equity an accounting of the balance of the adjusted account upon termination of the contract by his justifiable discharge for having secretly and wrongfully become connected with a competitor of his employer, either on the ground that his wilful and material breach of the contract barred him from relief or on the ground that he came into court with unclean hands or on the ground that as an unfaithful servant he had forfeited his right to compensation; but in the accounting he would be chargeable with the entire amount derived by him from his connection with the competitor and with any damages arising from his breach of the contract.
A certain arrangement between a corporation and the manager of one of the divisions of its business, although closely resembling a partnership in many particulars, including the manager's right to a share of the profits of the division as his entire compensation, was nevertheless an employment of the manager by the corporation and not a partnership.
The bill in a suit in equity commenced by trustee process need not name the trustee as a defendant where no relief against him other than as such trustee is sought.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on July 30, 1945. The suit was heard by Cabot, J., who filed "Findings, Rulings and Order for Decree." The evidence was not reported upon appeal by the plaintiff from a final decree dismissing the bill.
C. C. Worth, (C.
B. Cross with him,) for the plaintiff.
B. H. Loewenberg, (C.
R. Cabot with him,) for the defendant Atlantic Research Associates, Inc.
This is a bill for an accounting between the plaintiff and Atlantic Research Associates, Inc., hereinafter called the defendant and for payment to the plaintiff of the sum found to be due him, all on account of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant dated June 3, 1943, whereby the defendant employed the plaintiff for an indefinite period as general manager of the defendant's "mechanical division." From a final decree dismissing the bill the plaintiff appeals.
By the terms of the contract the plaintiff was "to take and have charge of this division, subject to such general policies and within such budgets as the management and board of directors of the company [defendant] may from time to time establish." The defendant was to "have the sole say as to the business to be conducted by the mechanical division, and as to the receipts and disbursements to be allocated to it," provided that such allocations should be in accordance with the defendant's regular accounting practices and not contrary to the contract. The plaintiff was to "devote all of his time, attention and energy to the duties of this employment" and was to "perform his duties to the best of his abilities" and to "use his best efforts" to contribute ideas, inventions and improvements for the use of the "mechanical division." "As his only compensation" the plaintiff was to share the net profits and net losses of the "mechanical division" equally with the defendant. Net profits or losses were to be computed not less frequently than once each calendar quarter. The method of calculating net profits was precisely stated. The defendant was to set up on its books an account with the plaintiff from which the plaintiff would "be permitted to draw weekly a reasonable percentage of his share of net profits up to a maximum of one hundred dollars ($100) a week." The plaintiff would also be permitted not oftener than once in each calendar quarter "to withdraw so much of his credit balance as exceeds 50% of the book value of the assets of the mechanical division (other than cash) including without limitation machinery, equipment, inventory and accounts receivable . . . as the parties may determine by mutual agreement." This account between the plaintiff and the defendant was to be "subordinate" to the claims of all creditors of the defendant.
The provisions for termination of the contract are important and are here quoted in full.
The trial judge made detailed findings of fact which in substance are these: On June 3, 1943, the defendant was engaged primarily in the manufacture, development and sale of chemical products. It had also a small division of its business engaged in the work of a machine shop. It was anxious to increase the operations of its machine shop, and to that end it employed the plaintiff. The plaintiff
The judge further found that "the plaintiff's secretly joining the Cushing Stearns partnership was a wilful and material breach of his contract with the defendant," and ruled that the plaintiff had "thereby forfeited his right to relief in a court of equity." He found, however, that the defendant had paid the plaintiff $15,500, and that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, his "damages," that is, the balance still due to him, calculated according to the terms of his contract with the defendant, would be $42,991.90.
The defendant contends that these findings were not made under the statute (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 214, Section 23, as appearing in St 1945, c. 394, Section 1), and that it is not stated that they comprise all the material facts upon which the decree was based. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Elec. Co. v. Kimball Jewelers
...that will justify any claim of unclean hands. MacCormac v. Flynn, 313 Mass. 547, 549-550, 48 N.E.2d 24; Walsh v. Atlantic Research Associates, Inc., 321 Mass. 57, 66, 71 N.E.2d 580. The method employed by the plaintiff in investigating and enforcing the prices at which retail dealers were b......
-
Meehan v. Shaughnessy
...by simply breaching the partnership agreement. Fisher v. Fisher, 349 Mass. 675, 677, 212 N.E.2d 222 (1965). Walsh v. Atlantic Assocs., 321 Mass. 57, 64, 71 N.E.2d 580 (1947). The same rule applies to a partner's capital contributions. These amounts are not a form of liquidated damages to wh......
-
In re Tri-Star Technologies Co., Inc.
...paid because the employees "worked as hard, and were as productive as they had always been."); Walsh v. Atlantic Research Associates, 321 Mass. 57, 66, 71 N.E.2d 580, 585 (1947) (disloyal employee did not have to forfeit over 75% of his compensation due to his disloyal conduct which was fou......
-
G4S Tech. LLC v. Mass. Tech. Park Corp.
...is not an absolute proposition, as the purpose of the doctrine is to allow courts to produce a just result. Walsh v. Atlantic Research Assocs., 321 Mass. 57, 62, 71 N.E.2d 580 (1947). The proper focus is on the value of the benefit conferred. In a construction contract, "[t]he amount of rec......