Bradley v. American Radiator & Standard San. Corp., 128
| Decision Date | 08 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 128,Docket 20416.,128 |
| Citation | 159 F.2d 39 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Schlesinger & Schlesinger, of New York City (Maurice M. Kreis and Hyman Goldstein, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Sullivan & Cromwell, of New York City (Inzer B. Wyatt, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This is an action, originally brought in the state court, for breach of a contract of employment by which the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission or fee contingent upon his obtaining for the defendant from the Chemical Warfare Department of the United States Army orders for the manufacture of cast iron noses for incendiary bombs. After removal of the case to the district court on the ground of diverse citizenship, the defendant moved for dismissal of the action pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. This motion presented the question whether the employment contract is unenforceable because contrary to public policy. Judge Leibell considered the problem in a commendably thorough opinion, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 37, and held the contract void. Little need be added to his discussion.
In order to prevail the appellant must bring himself within the exception of Executive Order No. 9001, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 611 note, 6 F.R. 6787. The complaint shows that he has not done so. Executive Order No. 9001 requires every contract entered into pursuant to the order to contain a warranty by the contractor that he has not employed any person to solicit the contract on a contingent fee basis but excepts "Commissions payable by contractors upon contracts or sales secured or made through bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the contractor for the purpose of securing business." In Reynolds v. Goodwin-Hill Corp., 2 Cir., 154 F.2d 553, this court construed the exception to apply to an agent employed generally to drum up business for the contractor but not to an agent employed to procure a specific contract. The appellant urges that such distinction was unnecessary to the decision and is unsound. It is true that the pronouncement as to the employment of an agent to procure specific contracts upon a contingent fee was a dictum but we still think it was a correct interpretation of the Executive Order. The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckley v. Coyne Elec. School, 45259
...There are no Supreme Court decisions. Reynolds v. Goodwin-Hill Corp., 2 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 553, and Bradley v. American Radiator & Standard San. Corp., 2 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 39, are the only Court of Appeals cases in point discussed in the briefs. In the Reynolds case plaintiff sued for ......
-
Acme Process Equipment Co. v. United States
...while others may not. * * Such grants of special privileges should be jealously restricted * *." Bradley v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 159 F.2d 39, 40-41 (C.A.2, 1947); Le John Mfg. Co. v. Webb, supra, 222 F.2d at 50. Assessing all the elements which must be considered in ......
-
United States v. Paddock
...of public policy, and its purpose was to preserve the contractual integrity of the United States. Bradley v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 39, 41. Before the issuance of that order, a contract procured by the methods therein condemned could not be enforced by......
-
Samuel J. Plumeri Realty Co., Inc. v. Capital Place Urban Renewal Associates, Inc.
...States v. Paddock, 178 F.2d 394, 395-96 (5th Cir.1949), reh'g denied, 180 F.2d 121 (5th Cir.1950); Bradley v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 159 F.2d 39, 41 (2d Cir.1947). With respect to a newly-formed agency relationship, continuity may be established through the parties' in......