Abresch v. Schultz, 27503.

• Citation: 216 S.W.2d 134
• Decision Date: 21 December 1948
• Docket Number: No. 27503.,27503.
• Parties: ABRESCH v. SCHULTZ et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

216 S.W.2d 134

ABRESCH v. SCHULTZ et al.

No. 27503.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 21, 1948.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 21, 1949.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William S. Connor, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action in quantum meruit by Chester E. Abresch against Ernest Schultz, Jr., and James B. Dunbar, doing business as General Canvas Company, to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff to defendants. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Dunbar & Curby, Norman C. Parker, and John W. Jones, all of St. Louis, for appellants.

Francis M. O'Brien, Theodore C. Eggers, and Charles E. Thompson, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

ANDERSON, Judge.

This is an action in quantum meruit to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by plaintiff to defendants during the period from October 1, 1945, to March 10, 1946. There was a verdict and judgment below for plaintiff. Defendants have appealed.

Defendants are partners doing business under the name of General Canvas Company and are engaged in the manufacture of tents and tarpaulins at its plant in Litchfield, Illinois. The business was organized in December, 1944, for the purpose of manufacturing squad tents for the U.S. Army Quartermaster's Department. Defendant Ernest Schultz, Jr., is also President of Canvas Products Company, a corporation located in the City of St. Louis. Defendant Dunbar is a lawyer in St. Louis.

Plaintiff, Chester E. Abresch, was originally employed by Canvas Products Company in March, 1944, and, in December, 1944, was that company's production manager. He received a salary from Canvas Products Company of $200 a month.

Plaintiff testified that on January 20, 1945, defendant Schultz told him that he had no confidence in anyone at the Litchfield plant and requested that plaintiff take complete charge of it. Plaintiff stated he then told defendant Schultz: "Ernie, I don't want it. I have two plants in St. Louis, that is keeping me going practically day and night. If it will help, I will take this over only from a supervisory angle. I will advise the supervision only as to methods of construction and anything else that may help them." To this defendant Schultz replied: "All right, Chet, that will be fine. If you will do that we will proceed on that angle. I will set your salary the 1st of October if that will be all right with you. The fiscal year will end on September 30th, and I will set your salary then." Plaintiff replied: "That is all right with me, Ernie."

Plaintiff further testified that thereafter he laid out the plans for the construction of the Army squad tents and made suggestions as to the training of employees, and did everything else that he could to assist in the enterprise. There was a general manager and superintendent of the plant at Litchfield. There seemed to be friction at the plant and, at a meeting in St. Louis on August 15, 1945, defendants requested plaintiff to go to Litchfield and discharge the general manager. In response to this request plaintiff told defendants that he was not in charge of the plant but only assisting them in a supervisory capacity, and that if he went over there and discharged the general manager he would have to be placed in charge of the plant. Thereupon, Mr. Dunbar wrote the following letter to P. W. Biggs, defendants' general manager, and Walter Anelik, superintendent, of the plant at Litchfield:

                                        "August 16, 1945
                Mr. P. W. Biggs
                    and
                Mr. Walter Anelik
                General Canvas Company
                202 West Ryder Street
                Litchfield, Ill
                

Dear Pete & Walter:

Ernie and I have decided to put Chet Abresch in complete charge of the Litchfield plant and all of its departments. You will, therefore, carry out immediately anything that he directs. He has the right to discharge anyone he sees fit, including yourselves, should he deem it necessary.

                      Yours very truly
                JVD:vc                 James V. Dunbar
                P.S. In other words, he is boss."
                

Plaintiff further testified that he went to Litchfield, taking with him this letter, and had a conference with Mr. Anelik and Mr. Biggs; and also had conferences with others. At the end of the day he found it necessary to ask Mr. Biggs for his resignation. He also discharged one of the foreladies of the plant. He then called together the supervisory employees and revamped the work and the whole set-up at the plant. Plaintiff stated that from that time on he was in complete charge of all the departments of the plant. He testified he sometimes worked as much as eighteen hours a day, but generally on the average from eleven to fifteen hours a day; that he would be at the Litchfield plant about five days a month, leaving St. Louis about 9:00 or 9:30 o'clock in the morning and getting back to St. Louis sometimes at 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock at night. This work continued until the 10th of March, 1946, when he was called into defendant Schultz's office and informed that other arrangements were being made as to the management of the General Canvas Company.

Plaintiff further testified that in September, 1945, Schultz said to him: "Now it is getting close to the first of October. I told you I would set your salary the first of October. * * * What do you want?" Plaintiff stated he replied: "Ernie, I told you when I went to work for you whatever salary you set would be all right with me, and I still stick by it." Plaintiff testified defendant Schultz then did quite a bit of figuring on a piece of paper and asked plaintiff when he went to work and plaintiff replied "January 20th"; that defendant Schultz said: "How would three hundred a month stack up with you?" Plaintiff testified he replied: "All right, fine"; that Schultz then said: "All right, I will give you a check for twenty-five hundred dollars on the first of October."

Around the 1st of October, 1945, Schultz gave plaintiff the check for $2500 and, according to plaintiff's testimony, told plaintiff that his duties would continue. Plaintiff further testified that his duties with the General Canvas Company thereafter became heavier, due to labor troubles and difficulties over material. He stated he did double the work after October 1, 1945.

The evidence shows that after the termination of the government contracts, after the close of the war, the General Canvas Company went into the production of civilian goods. In November, 1945, there was a meeting in Mr. Schultz's office of the officers of the Canvas Products Company, at which meeting Schultz requested each one present to outline their recommendations as to the articles that should be manufactured, and recommendations as to anything else that would be beneficial to the company. Schultz requested plaintiff to make recommendations as to the General Canvas Company, stating: "because nobody else has anything to do with it." Plaintiff then recommended that the General Canvas Company be disposed of, for the reason that he felt there was sufficient equipment, material and personnel at Canvas Products Company to fill all orders. A few days later Schultz called plaintiff into his office and went over plaintiff's recommendations. Schultz agreed to plaintiff's recommendations with respect to Canvas Products Company, but when he came to his recommendation with reference to the disposal of General Canvas Company, Schultz said: "Chet, I can't agree with you there * * * probably you are worrying about your three hundred dollars a month salary. * * * Don't let that trouble you, it is not going to break the company. If I lose $10,000 a year, I am still better off because I can take it off my income tax."

On cross-examination plaintiff testified that after October 1, 1945, he was the general manager of the plant at Litchfield; that he negotiated with the business agents of the textile workers' union and with the shop stewards there; that he laid out the plans for everything that was made there; and that he had complete charge of all individuals employed and of the inventory and shipments. He stated that neither Mr. Dunbar nor Mr. Schultz were at Litchfield after October 1, 1945, but the whole business was on his shoulders after that date; that there were many problems involved in converting the plant to civilian production, and thousands of things to do that would not meet the eye of the average person if he is not acting in the capacity of general manager.

Plaintiff's first demand for the payment of the salary claimed to be due him was on May 16, 1946, when he called Mr. Schultz regarding the fact that his salary in connection with General Canvas Company had not been paid, and that he was sending a statement of the amount due. Plaintiff stated that Schultz replied: "All right, Chet, send it on." The next day plaintiff made up a statement for $1600 and sent it to Schultz. This amount was never paid.

Plaintiff's services were terminated as to General Canvas Company on March 10, 1946. He stated that he said nothing about his salary with General Canvas Company at that time, because he did not want to worry Mr. Schultz, knowing that he had a lot on his mind at the time; that Schultz was then getting ready for a trip to Florida. Plaintiff said he figured Schultz would take care of the salary matter in the course of business.

Plaintiff's services with Canvas Products Company was terminated on March 22, 1946. He asked to be paid in full for his services to that company and was paid up to the minute.

Delores Williams was plaintiff's secretary at Canvas Products Company. She testified that there were daily telephone conversations between plaintiff and the Litchfield plant; that from August, 1945, to March, 1946, there were numerous letters between plaintiff and the Litchfield plant, and between plaintiff and various officers of the Union there; that plaintiff received daily production reports, and that a copy of the inventory of...