68 S.W. 404 (Ky.App. 1902), Charles Brown Grocery Co. v. Wasson
|Citation:||68 S.W. 404, 113 Ky. 414|
|Opinion Judge:||HOBSON, J.|
|Party Name:||CHARLES BROWN GROCERY CO. v. WASSON et al. |
|Attorney:||Chas. H. Fisk, for appellant. H. D. Gregory, for appellees.|
|Case Date:||May 21, 1902|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Kentucky|
Appeal from circuit court, Kenton county.
"To be officially reported."
Action by the Charles Brown Grocery Company against C. E. Wasson and others on a bond. Judgment for plaintiff against C. E. Wasson and dismissing petition as to other defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Appellant, the Charles Brown Grocery Company, employed C. E. Wasson as salesman. By the contract between them he was to receive for his services compensation at the rate of 40 per cent. of the gross profits on the sales made by him. For a part of the time the company guarantied to him that this should not be less than $85 a month and expenses, but later the guaranty was withdrawn. The company furnished him money from time to time, as he called for it, to cover his expenses and salary, and at the end of his term of service he had fallen in debt to it in the sum of $572.77. He executed to it a bond, with appellees as sureties, for the faithful performance of his duties, and this suit was brought by the company on the bond against him and his sureties to recover the balance owing by him. On final hearing the court gave judgment against him for the amount claimed, but dismissed the action as to his sureties, and from this judgment the plaintiff appeals. The only question in the case that need be determined is whether the bond which the sureties signed covers the liability sued for. By it the obligors acknowledged themselves bound to the company in the sum of $2,000, and then concludes with these words: "The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas, the said Charles Brown Grocery Company aforesaid have employed the said Charles E. Wasson to sell goods and collect for same: Now, if the said Charles E. Wasson shall well and faithfully discharge his duties as salesman and collector, and shall also account for all moneys and properties and other things which may come into his possession or under his control in such capacity, then the above obligation is to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and virtue." It is not averred or shown that Wasson failed to discharge his duties as salesman or collector, or that he did not account for moneys...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP