Atlanta Stove Works v. Hamilton
Decision Date | 25 January 1904 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | ATLANTA STOVE WORKS v. WILLIAM B. HAMILTON |
FROM the circuit court of Lowndes county. HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.
Hamilton appellee, was plaintiff, and the Atlanta Stove Works appellant, defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
William Baldwin, for appellant.
E. T. Sykes, for appellee.
[The reporter has been unable to find the briefs of counsel in this case, they were lost or withdrawn from the record before it reached him.]
On February 8, 1902, appellant employed appellee, Hamilton, as its traveling salesman in a specified territory at a salary of $ 100 per month. The contract appears in a letter of appellant which contains the following stipulations (italics ours):
No providential cause intervened, and so the contract was binding on the parties to it to January 1, 1903, with the right in the Stove Works to terminate it at any time before then if Hamilton's services in the employment were "unsatisfactory." Services were rendered by Hamilton up to October 22, 1902, when the Stove Works wrote him the following letter (italics ours):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGlohn v. Gulf & S. I. R. R. Co.
... ... Schmand ... v. Jandorf, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 680; Atlanta Stove Works ... v. Hamilton, 83 Miss. 704, 35 So. 763 ... It ... ...
-
Rape v. Mobile & O. R. R. Co.
... ... Favre, 110 Miss. 864, at 870; Haynes v. Atlanta & ... Charlotte R. Co., 143 N.C. 55, 125 S.E. 447; Elliott ... In ... Atlanta Stove Works v. Hamilton, 83 Miss ... 704, 35 So. 763, this court held that ... ...
-
Short v. Columbus Rubber and Gasket Co., Inc., 58045
...such a contract must prove (a) the length of the contract and (b) the amount of the salary for the term. See Atlanta Stove Works v. Hamilton, 83 Miss. 704, 35 So. 763 (1901) (enforcing such a written contract; treating additional terms as We recognize treatise authority for the position tha......
-
Wilson v. Gamble
...L. R. 1356. The contracts are not unilateral. Rape v. M. & O. R. Co., 136 Miss. 38; McGlohn v. G. & S. I. R. R., 174 So. 250; Stove Works v. Hamilton, 83 Miss. 704. Even this court should be of the opinion, as stated by counsel, that the contracts are unilateral and wanting in mutuality, th......