Brooks v. Nat'l Equip. Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1932 |
| Citation | 209 Wis. 198,244 N.W. 598 |
| Parties | BROOKS v. NATIONAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; John J. Gregory, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.
Action commenced December 23, 1931. An order sustaining a demurrer to an amended complaint was entered March 26, 1932, and plaintiff appealed.Lines, Spooner & Quarles and Maxwell H. Herriott, all of Milwaukee (Chas. B. Quarles, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
Zimmers, Jaekels & Zimmers, of Milwaukee (George A. Schutt, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.
Plaintiff sued to recover salary for the unexpired portion of the second year of his employment by defendant, which had terminatedthe employment before the expiration of that second year. The sole question raised by a demurrer to an amended complaint on the ground that the facts alleged were insufficient to constitute a cause of action is whether there was a contract of employment for a definite term of one year. The employment was arranged by correspondence which, so far as now material, was to the following effect: Defendant offered plaintiff “the position of General Sales Manager at a salary of $15,000 per year to begin with, and future increase in salary, or any arrangements for additional remuneration will depend upon the efficiency and the manner in which the sales department is conducted under your direction.” Plaintiff replied, requesting some officership, and “a chance on increasing my income if you will provide some basis--such as a bonus on increased sales or profits over the normal”; and inquired, “How would Dec. 1 suit you as a time to start?” Next defendant inquired whether plaintiff “will take the position at $15,000 per year.” It further appears from the complaint that plaintiff accepted the offer, moved his family from New York to Milwaukee, and entered defendant's employment on November 1, 1929. For his services defendant paid him monthly, at a rate of $15,000 per year, until September 1, 1930, when he voluntarily accepted a 10 per cent. reduction in salary to which defendant's employees were then subjected. Prior to entering defendant's employment, plaintiff had been very successfully engaged in manufacturing and selling and had earned more than $15,000 per year.
[1][2] Although the precedents elsewhere are conflicting, in this state it has been the established rule that a hiring at some specified amount per month or year is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Kremer v. Rule
-
Koskey v. Harnischfeger Corp.
...in the absence of other facts, an indefinite hiring only, which may be terminated at the will of either party. Brooks v. National Equipment Corp., 209 Wis. 198, 200, 244 N.W. 598;Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Krueger, 184 Wis. 139, 198 N.W. 394;Kosloski v. Kelly, 122 Wis. 665, 100 N.W. 1037;......
-
Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...Bank (1937), 224 Wis. 511, 272 N.W. 369; koskey v. Harnischfeger Corp. (1936), 221 Wis. 267, 265 N.W. 583; Brooks v. National Equipment Corp. (1932), 209 Wis. 198, 244 N.W. 598; Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Krueger (1924), 184 Wis. 139, 198 N.W. We thus conclude that the most that was promi......
-
Fountain v. Oreck's, Incorporated
...covering a fixed period creates a hiring for an indefinite period terminable at the will of either party, e.g., Brooks v. National Equipment Corp., 209 Wis. 198, 244 N.W. 598, or raises a presumption that a contract for hire for the stated period was intended, e.g., Southwell v. Parker Plow......