Bradley Grinding Mach. Corp. v. Bradley, 16.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1947
• Docket Number: No. 16.,16.
• Citation: 316 Mich. 396,25 N.W.2d 520
• Parties: BRADLEY GRINDING MACHINE CORPORATION v. BRADLEY et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

316 Mich. 396

25 N.W.2d 520

BRADLEY GRINDING MACHINE CORPORATION

v.BRADLEY et al.

No. 16.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 6, 1947.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Robert M. Toms, judge.

Action by Bradley Grinding Machine Corporation against Leonard G. Bradley and others for an accounting and injunctive relief, wherein named defendant and another filed cross-bills. From a decree adjudicating the respective rights of the parties, plaintiff appeals.

Decree affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Francis Rosenthal, of Detroit, for appellant.

Samuel S. Greenberg, of Detroit (Leonard J. Grabow, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees.

CARR, Chief Justice.

This is an action for an accounting and for injunctive relief. Plaintiff corporation was organized in 1942, for the purpose of manufacturing light grinding machines. The sole stockholder was, and is, George Bradley, who is the son of the defendant Leonard G. Bradley. Said defendant was at the time operating a business under the name of Bradley Machinery Company at 211 Joseph Campau avenue in the city of Detroit. Plaintiff rented from defendant Bradley a portion of the space at said address for the purpose of conducting its business. It was also agreed that defendant Bradley should have the exclusive right of selling the grinding machines manufactured.

Plaintiff's business was at least reasonably successful, a number of machines being assembled and sold. Defendant Rankin was hired as fiscal manager for plaintiff, and acted as treasurer, his salary being fixed at $5,000 per year. Defendant Reid was hired as an accountant and to supervise the corporation books. It was agreed that he was to receive $100 a month for his services. It is conceded that neither Rankin nor Reid has been paid in full in accordance with the contracts of employment.

Plaintiff in its bill of complaint alleged that the three defendants conspired to injure plaintiff; that various items of expense that should have been charged to defendant Bradley had in fact been paid by the corporation; and that the other defendants were not entitled to collect the compensation claimed by them for work done because of failure to perform their respective duties in a proper manner; and for the further reason that they had, by their conduct, caused injury to the plaintiff. Defendants Bradley and Rankin answered the bill of complaint, denying its material allegations, and filed cross-bills setting forth affirmative claims. In his cross-bill, defendant Bradley alleged that he had expended money on behalf of plaintiff, particularly in taking care of its payroll from time to time. Defendant Rankin, denying the charges made against him, asked that the court enter a decree in his favor for the amount of his unpaid salary. Defendant Reid did not appear in the case.

Following the trial in the circuit court an opinion was filed in which the judge who heard the case carefully analyzed the proofs presented to him, disallowed certain items of plaintiff's claim against defendant Bradley, and allowed other items of such claim in the aggregate amount of $1,302.58. It was further held that defendant Bradley was entitled under his cross-bill to an allowance in the sum of $7,148.23, of which amount it appears $7,052.22 was for moneys advanced by him to meet plaintiff's payroll. The items rejected in plaintiff's, and in defendant Bradley's, claims were found to be without supporting proof.

The trial court further found that defendant Rankin was entitled to...