Crowell v. Houde Engineering Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | 16616 |
| Parties | CROWELL v. HOUDE ENGINEERING CORPORATION. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 1, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.
“ Not to be officially reported.”
Action by Charles Crowell against the Houde Engineering Corporation. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Gossett, Ellis, Dietrich & Tyler, of Kansas City, for appellant.
Jenkins & Vance, of Kansas City, for respondent.
This is an action to recover a bonus. Plaintiff was a salesman for the Houdaille Company, a corporation which sold the products of defendant. On or about February 1, 1925, defendant corporation took over the business of the Houdaille Company, and at that time plaintiff went to Buffalo, N.Y., and there discussed with defendant’s president, Mr. Shultz, the question of his employment by defendant for the year 1925. Plaintiff had been receiving a salary of $3,600 a year from the Houdaille Company, but at the conference in Buffalo Mr. Shultz hired plaintiff for the year 1925 as a salesman of defendant corporation at an annual salary of $5,000. Plaintiff stated that the president of the corporation agreed that, in addition to this salary, plaintiff should receive a bonus, if defendant made a profit during the year, such bonus to be governed by the business produced from the district in plaintiff’s territory which consisted of several states. Plaintiff testified: "We didn’t arrive at any percentage that I would be paid on the business from my territory; " that the president said: "I don’t want to arrive at any stated percentage on that business because I don’t know what we will be able to do, but if you want to be fair with us, why we will be fair with you."
Plaintiff also testified: "That was allright with me and I went to work on that basis."
Plaintiff testified that after the close of the year 1925, early in February of the next year, he again saw Mr. Shultz in Chicago, and Mr. Shultz told him that the auditor had given a report which showed that the company had made a profit of $68,000, and on that report plaintiff’s bonus would be $2,000. Plaintiff told the president that that was very satisfactory, and asked when he would receive a check for the bonus. Mr. Shultz told him that business was slow at that time of the year, and the company kept on buying and building shock absorbers and kept putting them in storage for spring trade, that the company had just purchased $42,000 worth of new machinery and equipment, and had had to borrow money, and the surplus was tied up in shock absorbers, and that he would like to wait until the stock moved before paying the bonus. To this suggestion the plaintiff agreed. On the day following this conference Mr. Shultz and defendant’s sales manager had a conversation with plaintiff at the railroad station in Chicago in which they attempted to employ him as a salesman for the year 1926. Plaintiff told them that he wanted to have everything clear in his mind, and that he would let them know by Saturday whether he would stay with the company, and then plaintiff said: "In the first place, my bonus on last year’s business is $2,000, is that right?" Mr. Shultz replied: "Yes, that is right."
Plaintiff then returned to Kansas City, and wired Mr. Shultz at Buffalo, again mentioning the statement that his bonus for 1925 would be $2,000. In the telegram appeared this sentence:
Plaintiff received a telegram in reply signed by the sales manager, which is in part as follows:
After some further correspondence by mail between the parties plaintiff made a business connection with a competitor of defendants, and later instituted this action to recover the bonus. Defendant denies that there was any agreement for a bonus at the time of hiring, and denies that there was any absolute promise to pay a bonus at the end of the year.
The defendant asked an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence at the close of all the evidence, which instruction was denied. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,000. A motion for new trial was filed and overruled, and defendant has appealed.
Opinion.The petition in this case attempts to declare upon an account stated. We will not pause to determine whether the petition states a cause of action, but will pass immediately to the question as to whether or not there was any evidence to sustain a verdict. An account...
To continue reading
Request your trial