Baldwin v. Marqueze

• Decision Date: 27 March 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 309,91 Ga. 404
• Parties: BALDWIN v. MARQUEZE et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 309

91 Ga. 404

BALDWIN v. MARQUEZE et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 27, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. By the correspondence between the parties, a contract was entered into which contemplated a continuance of business for the season of 1890, of the same kind which had been previously carried on, to wit the procurement of orders for merchandise upon the usual credit, and not for cash only; the new feature being that plaintiff was to be compensated for his services by a specified commission on the amount of such orders, instead of by a salary.

2. It was a breach of the contract for the defendants to withdraw the power to take orders for credit sales, and restrict the plaintiff to the procurement of orders for cash sales only. As this breach would result naturally, or most probably, in a material reduction of the plaintiff's compensation, he was justified in discontinuing his services, and in declining to execute the contract on his part.

3. By the breach above referred to, the plaintiff had a cause of action for all the damages which he sustained thereby. His damages were not speculative, nor too remote, and the evidence warranted the verdict as to amount. The court erred in granting a new trial.

Error from superior court, Clarke county; N. L. Hutchins, Judge.

Action by F. S. Baldwin against Marqueze & Varney for breach of contract of employment. There was a verdict for plaintiff and a new trial awarded. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Lumpkin & Burnett, for plaintiff in error.

Barrow & Thomas, for defendants in error.

BLECKLEY C.J.

1. The correspondence between the parties, reading it all together concluded a contract for the continuance of business by Baldwin as drummer or travelling salesman for the firm, for the season of 1890; and the business contemplated was of the same kind as that previously carried on, which was the procurement of orders for merchandise upon the usual credit not for cash only. One new feature, and but one, was introduced: the compensation of Baldwin was to be a specified commission on the orders he procured, and not a fixed salary, as it had previously been.

2. It was necessarily implied in the contract that Baldwin should have and retain power to take the class of orders which the contract contemplated until the season of 1890 closed. When this power was withdrawn, and he was restricted to soliciting and receiving cash orders only, the...