Dormeyer v. Haffa
| Decision Date | 09 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 45321 |
| Citation | 98 N.E.2d 532,343 Ill.App. 177 |
| Parties | DORMEYER v. HAFFA. . First District. First Division |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Joseph Keig, Chicago, for appellant.
Henry Pollenz, John A. Zvetina, Chicago, Henry Pollenz, S.B. Rosenzweig, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.
Plaintiff sued defendant upon a guaranty of performance of a contract of employment, between plaintiff and his wife and a partnership doing business as Screw Manufacturing Company, and also upon an alleged oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant, entered into about June 1, 1944, to the effect that if plaintiff would obtain for the A.F. Dormeyer Manufacturing Company a permit or authorization from the War Production Board to manufacture 5,000 or more food mixers, defendant would cause the said company to manufacture and sell the same to plaintiff at $9.00 each. After many amendments and supplements to the original complaint filed herein, the cause proceeded to trial with a jury upon Count II and Count IV of the last amended and supplemental complaint. A verdict for defendant was directed by the court, upon which judgment was entered, from which plaintiff appeals.
It appears from the evidence that negotiations between plaintiff and defendant, relating to the sale of plaintiff's stock in the Dormeyer corporation, culminated about June 1, 1944, in a written agreement, which, with the stock to be sold, was placed in escrow until the purchase price was paid. At the same time and as a part of the transaction, defendant caused the partnership doing business as Screw Manufacturing Company, of which he seemed to have control, to enter into the contract of employment declared upon in Count II. The contract between the Screw Manufacturing Company and plaintiff and his wife, Daisy I. Dormeyer, provided in substance that the Dormeyers, referred to as parties of the second part, agreed to devote their best efforts to the business of the company; that the parties of the second part jointly would not be required to devote more than five hours per day for a period of five days a week to the work of the company, and that the work would not consist of manual labor or shop work but only work of an executive, administrative or advisory capacity; that they were to be paid for such services $833.33 per month, commencing July 1, 1944, and during the term of the agreement, which should run from June 1, 1944, through the duration of World War II, plus six months thereafter; that in the event Albert Dormeyer should die or become incapacitated and unable to render services, and such incapacity shall continue for 90 days, then the compensation payable shall be $250.00 per month only; that in the event of the death or incapacity of Daisy I. Dormeyer, under like circumstances, the compensation shall be $583.00 per month. To this written contract was attached a guaranty, signed by defendant, guaranteeing full and complete performance by the parties of the first part.
In connection with this employment contract, we find the astounding charge, under oath, in Count III of the amended and supplemental complaint filed December 5, 1946, that the said contract of employment was a mere sham and device or method of paying, in part, for the shares of stock of the corporation, and that the name of his wife, Daisy Dormeyer, was included merely as a means for paying her in the event of plaintiff's death or his inability to perform the pretended services called for by the contract; that it was in fact agreed between plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff would not be required to render any service, and that in all of the transactions between plaintiff and defendant, defendant was in control and dominated the affairs of the company. It is true that Count III was withdrawn upon the trial, but its allegations, under oath, were used as admissions against plaintiff. Daub v. Englebach, 109 Ill. 267. When confronted with these charges in Count III, plaintiff testified that the contract was a sham and device, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bredouw v. Jones
...policy; and that the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answer. Plaintiff cites Dormeyer v. Haffa, 343 Ill.App. 177, 98 N.E.2d 532, an Illinois case, for the contention that the courts will not aid in the enforcement of certain contracts because of thei......
-
Yost v. Carroll
...“notes.” “Contracts” that are entered into for the purpose of evading taxes may be void as against public policy. See Dormeyer v. Haffa, 343 Ill.App. 177, 98 N.E.3d 532 (1951); Heavenly Ham Co. v. HBH Franchise Co., LLC., 2005 WL 331558, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2005). But, Mr. Carroll's initial pl......
-
Roels v. Drew Industries, Inc.
...Ill. 40, 54-55, 48 N.E.2d 333; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kastor (1916), 273 Ill. 332, 342-43, 112 N.E. 988; and Dormeyer v. Haffa (1951), 343 Ill.App. 177, 180-81, 98 N.E.2d 532), it has been held that only guaranties of performance expressly incorporate the terms and conditions of the princi......
-
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain R.
...(1943); Mercantile Trust Co. of Illinois v. Kastor, 273 Ill. 332, 342-43, 112 N.E. 988, 992 (1916); and Dormeyer v. Haffa, 343 Ill.App. 177, 180-81, 98 N.E.2d 532, 534 (1st Dist.1951). If so, the unenforceability of the License Agreement against NGV would compel unenforceability of the Guar......