Butler v. Winona Mill Company
| Decision Date | 29 July 1881 |
| Parties | Charles Butler v. Winona Mill Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for Winona county, where the action was tried by Mitchell, J., a jury being waived.
Judgment affirmed.
Berry & Morey, for appellant, cited Van Arman v. Byington, 38 Ill. 443; 1 Parsons Cont. (4th Ed.) 539; 1 Chitty on Contracts, 544; Bryant v. Flight, 5 Mees. & Wels. 114; United States v. Macdaniel, 7 Pet. 1; United States v Ripley, 7 Pet. 18.
Wilson & Gale, for respondent.
It appears from the findings of fact in this case that the plaintiff performed services for the defendant corporation under a contract whereby "it was agreed that plaintiff was to enter the service of the defendant in superintending the mason work of a mill, about to be erected by it, and the amount of the plaintiff's compensation therefor was to be left entirely to the defendant to determine and fix, after the services were performed, at such price and amount as under all the circumstances, it (defendant) should consider right and proper." It further appears from the findings "that after such services were completed, and before the action was brought, the defendant determined and fixed upon the sum of two and a half dollars per day as the amount of plaintiff's compensation, and as the amount and price thereof, which, under the circumstances, it (defendant) considered right and proper." The further fact is found that the services were reasonably worth four dollars per day. The court below gave judgment for the amount of the compensation at the rate of two and a half dollars per day. The plaintiff claims that he was entitled to a judgment at the rate of four dollars per day.
We think the judgment, as rendered, is correct. The contract was clear and unambiguous. The stipulation that the amount of the compensation should depend upon the judgment and decision of the employer may have been an undesirable one for the plaintiff to consent to; but he nevertheless chose to accept the employment on those terms. The contract was an entirety, and of obligation in all its parts, and the law cannot, after it has been executed, relieve the plaintiff from the consequences of one of its stipulations, which proves to be disadvantageous to him. That would, in effect, be making a new contract for the parties.
It was the duty of the defendant to determine and fix the amount of the compensation honestly and in good faith, and if it did so fix it, the obligation of the contract was fulfilled so far as...
To continue reading
Request your trial