Arthur Koenig Co. v. Graham Glass Co.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1920 |
| Citation | 175 N.W. 814,170 Wis. 472 |
| Parties | ARTHUR KOENIG CO. v. GRAHAM GLASS CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.
Action by the Arthur Koenig Company against the Graham Glass Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action to recover the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services as a broker in the sale of 37,000 gross of beer bottles; it being alleged in the complaint that the reasonable value is $1,500.
The defendant denied that plaintiff had ever been employed or authorized to act as a broker or agent for it, and denied that the plaintiff was a procuring cause of the sales upon which the commissions were based. The case was submitted to the jury upon a special verdict, and the jury found: (1) That R. A. Graham (one of the officers of defendant company) on September 18, 1916, promised that the defendant would pay the plaintiff 1 1/2 per cent. commission on orders for bottles which the plaintiff procured for the defendant from the Pabst, Schlitz, Blatz, and Milwaukee-Waukesha Brewing Companies; (2) that George F. Knox (managing sales agent of defendant for Wisconsin) on October 11, 1916, agreed to give the Pabst Brewing Company an extra 1 per cent. discount upon its order and to have such extra discount taken out of his commission; (3), (4), and (5) that the plaintiff was a procuring cause of the sale of bottles to the Milwaukee-Waukesha Brewing Company and to the Pabst Brewing Company.
The defendant moved, after the rendition of the verdict, to have the answers to each of the questions changed and for a new trial. The motions were denied, and the plaintiff had judgment for $1,689, from which judgment the defendant appeals.Bottum, Bottum, Hudnall & Lecher, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Bohmrich & Gabel, of Milwaukee, for respondent.
ROSENBERRY, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The only contention made by the defendant upon this appeal is that the plaintiff in accepting from Pabst Brewing Company the order for 36,000 gross of bottles, after Knox, the defendant's general sales agent for Wisconsin, had been notified that the defendant's factory output was practically sold, and Knox had been directed to discontinue soliciting orders, was such gross negligence and gross misconduct as to preclude the plaintiff from recovering any commission upon such sale.
[1] There is no dispute as to the rules of law applicable. An agent who is guilty of fraud upon his principal or who betrays his trust by acting adversely to the interest of his principal, or is guilty of unfaithfulness, dishonesty, gross misconduct, gross mismanagement, gross unskillfulness, or who fails to follow his principal's instructions, as a general rule forfeits his right to compensation. Rogers v. Priest, 74 Wis. 538, 43 N. W. 510; 2 C. J. 760, 766; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Laubenstein, 162 Wis. 165, 155 N. W. 918.
[2] The controversy in this case centers upon an order taken by the plaintiff from the Pabst Brewing Company on October 11, 1916. Treating the findings of the jury, as verities, and they are not attacked, treating other disputed material questions of fact not submitted as found against the defendant, under the provisions of section 2858m, substantially the following situation is presented: George S. Knox, of Milwaukee, was the general sales agent of the defendant company for the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. He entered the employment of the defendant company in February, 1915, and had a contract with it to sell its bottles exclusively at prices to be furnished by the defendant. He was to receive as compensation 3 per cent. of the sales price, after deduction of freight. In the years 1915 and 1916 Mr. Knox had desk room in the office of the plaintiff company, who was a broker and dealer in brewers' supplies. The relations between Knox and Koenig, managing officer of the plaintiff company, became friendly, and in the early part of the year 1915 an arrangement for splitting commissions was made on all orders for bottles which Koenig might obtain. On September 18, 1916, R. A. Graham, vice president and general sales manager of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Elevator, Inc. v. Lauer
...in excess of the amount misappropriated. One of the cases upon which the trial court relied was Arthur Koenig Co. v. Graham Glass Co., 170 Wis. 472, 473-474, 175 N.W. 814, 815 (1920). In this action by an agent against his principal to recover the reasonable value of the agent's services, t......
-
Faultersack v. Clintonville Sales Corp.
...of the facts to the principal he can refuse to pay the commission or recover a commission already paid. Arthur Koening Co. v. Graham Glass Co., 170 Wis. 472, 175 N.W. 814;Hustad v. Drives, 181 Wis. 87, 193 N.W. 984. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in their favor as prayed for in their c......
-
Bockemuhl v. Jordan
...of the facts to the principal he can refuse to pay the commission or recover a commission already paid. Arthur Koenig Co. v. Graham Glass Co., 170 Wis. 472, 175 N.W. 814; Hustad v. Drives, 181 Wis. 87, 193 N.W. Plaintiff's argument seems to be that he was not an exclusive agent of the defen......
-
Weller v. Phillip Gross Realty Co.
...Edmonds, 158 Wis. 122-134, 147 N. W. 1024;Sterling E. & C. Co. v. Miller, 164 Wis. 192-196, 159 N. W. 732;Arthur Koenig Co. v. Graham Glass Co., 170 Wis. 472-474, 175 N. W. 814, 815;Weinhagen v. Hayes et al. (1920) 178 N. W. 780. In the view we take of this case, it is unnecessary to pass u......