Davis v. Manchester

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Davis v. Manchester, 17 R.I. 577, 23 A. 1016 (R.I. 1892)
• Decision Date: 23 January 1892
• Parties: DAVIS v. MANCHESTER.

23 A. 1016

17 R.I. 577

DAVIS

v. MANCHESTER.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 23, 1892.

Action by John S. Davis against George E. Manchester on a contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant petitions for a new trial. Petition dismissed.

Defendant agreed to employ plaintiff as his agent and general manager of the business of selling paper twine, owned by defendant, for one year from the date of the execution of the contract.

Edward C. Dubois, for plaintiff.

Nathan W. Littlefield, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. By the terms of the contract the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to receive as full compensation for his services, one-half of the net profits, from which the plaintiff was to have the right to draw $18 per week, to be deducted from one-half of the net profits, as ascertained and calculated from time to time, and of which a final calculation and settlement were to be had at the termination of the year. The contract does not provide what shall be done in case there were no net profits. It gives the plaintiff the right, however, to draw $18 per week, and does not expressly require him to refund it in case the business does not result in a profit. The defendant contends that the implication is that the $18 a week is to be treated as a loan or advance to the plaintiff, and that he is bound to refund the excess of the sum so drawn over one-half of the net profits for the year. But, even if the contract is open to that implication, we think that, as there is no provision in it for the defendant to draw the $18 a week which the testimony shows he drew, he would not have the right to deduct that amount...