Bush v. Koll

• Decision Date: 11 April 1892
• Citation: 2 Colo.App. 48,29 P. 919
• Parties: BUSH et al. v. KOLL.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

29 P. 919

2 Colo.App. 48

BUSH et al. v. KOLL.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

April 11, 1892

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county; A.J. RISING, Judge.

Action on a contract by John Koll against William H. Bush and W.S Morse, trading as Bush & Morse, trading as Bush & Morse. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

BISSELL J., dissenting.

Teller & Orahood, for appellants.

Geo. F Dunklee and O.E. Jackson, for appellee.

RICHMOND P.J.

By the complaint in this case it is alleged that the plaintiff entered into the defendants' employment for the term of one year, in pursuance of a contract in writing, which is in words and figures as follows: "This agreement, made in duplicate, this 20th day of August, A.D.1888, between W.H Bush and W.S. Morse, partners under the firm name of Bush & Morse, parties of the first part, and John Koll, of Denver, Colo., party of the second part, witnesseth, that the said parties of the first part have this day employed John Koll as chef at the Windsor Hotel, for the term of one year, at a monthly salary of one hundred and thirty dollars, ($130.) The said party of the second part agrees to give his entire attention to the business for which he is employed, and to render good and satisfactory service. In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this day and year above written. [Signed] WILLIAM H. BUSH. [Seal.] W.S. MORSE. [Seal.] JOHN KOLL. [Seal.]" On the 20th day of August, 1888, the plaintiff entered the service of the defendants under the contract, and so continued in their service until the 9th day of February, 1889. On the 9th day of February, 1889, defendants, without cause, discharged the plaintiff, and have since refused to employ him for the remainder of the term mentioned in the contract. That thereby the plaintiff has lost the wages which he would have obtained from said employment, and which the defendants have wholly refused to pay, and the plaintiff has been unable to obtain other employment; wherefore he demands judgment in the sum of $827.66, besides costs. Defendants answer, admitting that they entered into the contract substantially as stated in the complaint; but deny that the plaintiff faithfully discharged his duties according to the contract, or that he performed all or any of the terms or conditions of the contract on his part, or that he was ready or willing to continue in such service, or to comply with all or any of the conditions of the contract; deny that on the 9th day of February, 1889, the plaintiff was ready or willing to remain in such service, or to perform the conditions of the contract, or that they refused to suffer plaintiff to continue in their employ; deny that they wrongfully discharged him, or that they refused to re-employ him for the term mentioned in the contract. They further allege that at the time plaintiff quit their employment they paid him in full for all services rendered. Defendants, by further answer and counterclaim, allege that the plaintiff, while so engaged in defendants' service as chef, and about the time when dinner was being prepared for the guests of the hotel, wrongfully and fraudulently refused to go on with his work, and to discharge his duties under said contract, and aided, abetted, and counseled the other employes of defendants then engaged in the kitchen and dining room of the hotel to refuse to work for defendants. This defense sets out the number of guests in the hotel; the number of employes; and that, by reason of the acts of plaintiff, they were greatly inconvenienced, and were necessitated to employ other servants; wherefore they claim damages in the sum of $500. They further allege, by way of defense, upon information and belief, that the plaintiff was able to obtain further employment in the line of his vocation as chef in an hotel. The cause was tried to a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $413.83.

The testimony in the case seems somewhat conflicting, but we do not conceive it to be necessary to set it out fully in this opinion. Koll testifies that he was discharged without cause; that he was performing the services faithfully, under his contract, and, as he believed, giving entire satisfaction. From the testimony of Mr. Bush it appears that his services were not satisfactory; that, owing to the fact that the defendants had concluded to change the character of the cooking apparatus from a coal range to a gas range, the plaintiff became dissatisfied, and, growing out of this change, he so conducted himself and so run the culinary department of the hotel as to impose extravagant costs for gas upon the defendants; that they protested, and he claimed that he was doing the best he could. They insisted that experience and examination and their personal observation of coal ranges and gas ranges in eastern hotels had thoroughly demonstrated to them that the gas arrangement was infinitely cheaper and better for hotel service. Mr. Bush testified that "up to the time we made the change of cooking apparatus the service in the kitchen was satisfactory. After we made the change everything went wrong. There was continual trouble in the kitchen. Something would be underdone or overdone. I found the burners stopped up with grease. All of my men were under Koll's direction and charge. He was the head of the department. He was chef. Up to the time of the change in the range the service was satisfactory. After that, and up to the 9th of February, it was very unsatisfactory. There was a continual jar." Mr. Morse, the other defendant, testified that after the gas range was put in there was nothing satisfactory about Koll's service, or about the kitchen. It was a continual round of trouble all the time. Everything was unsatisfactory. The amount of gas used was three times the amount that the manufacturers of the range guarantied would be necessary to do this same work. There is considerable testimony on both sides of this controversy with reference to the capacity and utility of ranges to roast meats, cook potatoes, hard and soft boiled eggs, and, in fact, all of the usual articles that are enumerated upon the hotel menu or bill of fare. But with all this I think we have nothing to do. Here is a plain, simple, unambiguous contract, susceptible of easy construction,--so simple that he who can read and write ought to be able to understand. The contract is absolute and specific. By its terms plaintiff covenanted that his work should be satisfactory, not to himself, but to his employers. That it was not satisfactory is shown by the evidence of defendants, and is corroborated by that of plaintiff. Had plaintiff's services been eminently satisfactory to his employers, but his position unsatisfactory to himself, he could have quit, and they would have been remediless. To retain him in a state of revolt, and while influencing and demoralizing his subordinates, was impossible.

It is true that this agreement says that John Koll is employed for the term of one year, at a monthly salary of $130. It is equally true that the other part of the agreement says that he shall give his entire time and attention to the business for which he is employed, and render satisfactory service. Getting down, then, to the understanding of the individuals when this contract was executed, without utilizing technicalities, I do not think there is any escaping the conclusion that the parties to the contract well understood what they were doing. The testimony shows that Koll had been in the employ of the defendants before; that he had rendered satisfactory service; that he was expected to render satisfactory service. In other words, he was to devote his entire time and attention, as well as his artistic talent, to the service of the defendants, but, when that service proved unsatisfactory, it was the right of either party to terminate the contract,--it was mutual. If this be not true, I am at a loss to understand what part the last clause of this contract plays in this drama between masters and servant. That the service was unsatisfactory is demonstrated by the testimony of Bush & Morse. Who else could testify? Who else could say whether or not the service was satisfactory? Can it be argued or insisted that Koll was employed to act as chef of this hotel to manage and control the kitchen and its employes in his own way, without regard to the manifest wishes or directions of the defendants, and that, when the defendants gave certain instructions concerning the methods and manner of his employment, that he could say, "I am the servant but I am employed for a year, and for that one year I propose to exact my salary, and compel you, regardless of your wishes, to submit to my management and my dictation, to my manners and my methods, in running this hotel. I care nothing for your guests or your hotel enterprise; as chef for one year I propose to remain"? It may be argued that the masters in this case were fully protected under the general rule governing master and servant from any such theory as this; that, when he failed to perform his services promptly as chef of that hotel, the law would protect the defendants in discharging him. I claim, in answer to this, that it is the right of the defendants under the contract and the law to determine when that service is satisfactory, and when it commenced to be unsatisfactory. In Zaleski v. Clark, 44 Conn. 223, CARPENTER, J., says: "Courts of law must allow parties to make their own contracts, and can enforce only such as they actually make. Whether the contract is wise or unwise, reasonable or unreasonable, is ordinarily an immaterial inquiry. The simple inquiry is, what is the contract, and has the plaintiff performed his part of it?" This was a case wher...