Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey
Decision Date | 16 May 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 13798.,13798. |
Citation | 203 S.W.2d 557 |
Parties | DALLAS HOTEL CO. v. LACKEY. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Sarah T. Hughes, Judge.
Action by H. B. Lackey against the Dallas Hotel Company for breach of employment contract. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Clark, Coon, Holt & Fisher, of Dallas, for appellant.
Hassell & Hassell, of Dallas, for appellee.
The suit was for breach of a contract allegedly guaranteeing a year's period of employment; and, following a jury verdict, judgment was rendered against the Hotel for $3,660 which is here appealed.
Appellee's claim is based primarily on a letter of date August 2, 1944 from H. Fuller Stevens, acting for defendant, viz.: Interposed as a complete defense to the action was an instrument styled "Employment Agreement," undated, but signed, according to plaintiff Lackey, before he "went to work on August 25th." It reads: * * *"
Jury issues and answers were, in substance, that (1) during the time H. B. Lackey was employed by defendant he reasonably well performed all duties of manager of the Adolphus Hotel Drug Store; (2) that plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of $1,660 by reason of his discharge as manager of the drug store prior to August 25, 1945; (3) that Richard Nash was prompted by malice toward plaintiff in discharging him; but (3) that he was not thereby entitled to exemplary damages. To the jury finding of $1,660, the court added the $2,000 bonus mentioned in above letter of August 2, making up the total judgment under review.
Appellee had been employed in Oklahoma City at the time of the August letter; but, upon its receipt, went to that city, resigned his position, sold his home, removing household goods to Dallas, and on August 25 entered upon the instant employment; being engaged for the first several months in buying stock for the drug store, then in process of installation. The new business opened on December 18, plaintiff continuing in his capacity as manager until April 15, 1945, when he was discharged by Richard Nash, managing director of defendant, and tendered 30 days additional salary in lieu of further notice.
Mr. Lackey moved back to Oklahoma City where he secured work in June 1945, his expenses incident thereto and salary deficit to August 1945 constituting items of the claim in suit. Mr. Stevens, for the Hotel, knew at time of said letter that plaintiff was quitting another job, selling home and moving to Dallas for purpose of entering the new employment.
Further defensive pleadings were to the effect that the contract of hire contemplated a rendition of services satisfactory to defendant which plaintiff failed to perform; detailing numerous infringement of hotel regulations, and failures to abide by orders and instructions of defendant's representatives; and much of the 320 page statement of facts is devoted to such issue of fact. It is the substance of appellant's points 1, 2 and 3, that this case should be reversed because (a) the employment agreement was executed before appellee had gone to work and, as it involved the same subject matter and transaction, became the only contract between the parties, all prior dealings being merged therewith; hence any provision contained in the letter of August 2 must yield to the later writing; (b) a proper construction of the letter and employment contract, based on the intention of the parties, indicates a single contract, in which event all provisions of the August 25 agreement became effective, making plaintiff an employee at will, and waiving all claims for future salary and wages in event of discharge; (c) the writings, at most, simply evidenced an employment terminable from month to month and insufficient under undisputed evidence to support any claim of a year's contract of employment.
It is appellee's primary contention that he resigned his Oklahoma position and moved to Dallas in reliance on said August letter which imported a period of employment of one year, or to August 1945, hence the earlier discharge was wrongful; that the employment card signed on August 25, 1944 was inoperative as a contract or part of any contract between the parties because (a) without consideration and void; (b) showing upon its face that it was but a memorandum of plaintiff's history and background, and not intended to form a part of the contract of August 2; (c) the employment card, as a contract, was void because lacking in mutuality, providing, as it does, that the rights of the parties should exist only at the will of defendant; (d) if the writing of August 2 and the printed card of August 25 should be construed together as one instrument, then the typewritten letter contemplating employment for a year would take precedence over the printed card in case of irreconcilable conflict.
Plaintiff Lackey testified with respect to the execution of said letter: That the letter was to be attached to and made a part of the employment agreement, was also developed by defendant on cross-examination; and concerning the employment card, plaintiff likewise testified at instance of defendant:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chacko v. Texas a&M University
...Molnar v. Engels, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey, 203 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tex.Civ. App.-Dallas 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.). "Further, if the term of the contracted employment is intended to exceed beyond one year, the employmen......
-
AccuBanc Mortg. Corp. v. Drummonds
...Winograd v. Willis, 789 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey, 203 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1947, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Once the parties have agreed to a term of service, the employee cannot be fired except for good cause. ......
-
Dixie Glass Co. v. Pollak
...G. A. Kelly Plow Co. v. London, Tex.Civ.App., 125 S.W. 974; Schumaker v. Heinemann, 99 Wis. 251, 74 N.W. 785; Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 557, ref., n. r. e.; American Annotated Cases 1916A, pp. We are of the view that Issues Nos. 6 and 7 inquiring if appellee faile......
-
Johnson v. HISPANIC BROAD. OF TUCSON
...before that time. Furthermore, in Ward v. Berry & Associates, Inc., 614 S.W.2d 372, 376 (Tenn.App.1981), and Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey, 203 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tex.Civ.App.1947), the courts followed the presumption that hiring for certain per-year compensation raised a presumption that the em......
-
Written Employment Contracts
...and Security Systems, Inc ., 53 S.W.3d 687, 693 (Tex. App.—Tyler [12th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ( citing Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey , 203 S.W.2d 557, 563 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (op. on reh’g), “Although an employment-at-will contract allows severance of the employment ......
-
Written Employment Contracts
...and Security Systems, Inc ., 53 S.W.3d 687, 693 (Tex. App.—Tyler [12th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ( citing Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey , 203 S.W.2d 557, 563 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (op. on reh’g), “Although an employment-at-will contract allows severance of the employment ......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...at the end of a “year’s service” constituted an employment agreement for a term of one year). See also Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey , 203 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.) and Culkin v. Neiman-Marcus Co ., 354 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1962, no writ); cf.,......
-
Employer rules and policies
...that a “hiring at a stated sum per week, month, or year, is a definite employment for the period named.” Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey, 203 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1947, writ ref’d). See also Winograd v. Willis , 789 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ den......