Downs v. Racine-Sattley Company, a Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1914 |
| Citation | 162 S.W. 331,175 Mo.App. 382 |
| Parties | EDWIN DOWNS, Respondent, v. RACINE-SATTLEY COMPANY, a Corporation, and RACINE-SATTLERY COMPANY OF KANSAS, a Corporation, Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. A. O. Lucas, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Ellis Cook & Barnett for appellants.
Ellison A. Neel and John M. Cleary for respondent.
Action for breach of a contract for services. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the sum demanded in his petition and the cause is here on the appeal of defendant. There was no written contract for the services in question and the cause of action is founded on an alleged oral agreement made in the month of July, 1906, for the employment of plaintiff for a term beginning September 1 1906, and ending July 1, 1907.
Defendant has two principal defenses, viz., first, that no oral contract was entered into by the parties and, second, that if there was such a contract it was made in the month of June, 1906, and being for services that could not be fully performed within a year from that date was void under the Statute of Frauds. Plaintiff does not controvert the rule of law involved in the last defense and the issue thus raised was tried in the circuit court on the theory that if the alleged oral contract was entered into in the month of July, plaintiff was entitled to recover and if it was made in the preceding month, he had no cause of action. This issue of fact was submitted to the jury and was resolved in favor of plaintiff. Counsel for defendant recognize the rule that prohibits an appellate court from interfering with a verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence but insist in their brief and argument that the verdict is unsupported by any substantial evidence and, therefore, that the court erred in overruling defendant's request for a peremptory instruction.
The facts of the case thus may be stated: Defendant, a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of agricultural implements and vehicles with headquarters at Racine, Wisconsin, maintained branch establishments in a dozen different cities, among them one at Kansas City, and plaintiff was the manager of the Kansas City business under a written contract which ended September 1, 1906. Defendant's president, whose office was at Racine, was its general executive officer, but it appears that an officer whose title we shall abbreviate to that of "sales manager" had authority to employ branch managers and that he had an assistant who was not invested with such authority. Prior to July 2, 1906, George B. Lowrie was the assistant but on that date he was promoted to the office of sales manager and a bulletin of his appointment was sent immediately to each branch office and was received at the Kansas City branch July 5, 1906. It appears from the evidence of plaintiff that Lowrie's predecessor, on one of his visits to the Kansas City office, had discussed with plaintiff the subject of his employment for another year beginning September 1, 1906, at a reduced salary but no definite agreement was reached. Plaintiff expressed a willingness to continue in the service for another year at a salary of four thousand dollars and, apparently, this offer met the approval of the sales manager, but the matter was left unsettled. The proposed reduction of plaintiff's salary does not appear to have been prompted by dissatisfaction with his management of the business but was the result of a determination of the chief executive officers to make a general reduction in the expenses of the Kansas City branch. Another proposed retrenchment related to the rental account. The office and sample rooms were kept in the Woodward building in the "West bottoms" of Kansas City while the warerooms were in another building known as the Duke building. The lease in the Woodward building was about to expire and the question of renewing it or of moving the office and sample rooms to the Duke building was under discussion. By removing the offices a considerable saving in rent could be effected but the new quarters would be less desirable than the old and it was feared such change might cause a serious loss of business. Plaintiff advocated the renewal of the lease in the Woodward building and this subject was discussed by him and the sales manager on the occasion to which we have referred but no definite conclusion was reached. Matters affecting the business at Kansas City were in the state described on Lowrie's accession to the office of sales manager. Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that in a day or two after the bulletin of Lowrie's promotion was received, he appeared at the Kansas City office and took up with plaintiff the two subjects of a renewal of plaintiff's contract of employment for another year and of a renewal of the lease in the Woodward building. Referring to the first of these subjects, Lowrie stated he desired to employ plaintiff for another season but as the company had decided to change the end of its fiscal year from September 1st to July 1st, he would employ plaintiff for a term ending July 1, 1907, on the basis of a salary of four thousand dollars per year, and that plaintiff accepted this proposal and the parties then shook hands over the agreement. Further, plaintiff's evidence shows that he requested Lowrie on returning to Racine to write him a letter of confirmation and that Lowrie promised to write such a letter. The promise was not kept but was renewed by Lowrie in August and again broken. The oral contract of employment, as stated by plaintiff, treated the promised written confirmation not as an essential to the creation of the contract but merely as written evidence that such contract had been made. Plaintiff received notice of his discharge September 5, 1906, five days after the beginning of his performance of the oral contract. He continued in the service of defendant a week longer when he was relieved, against his protest, by his successor.
The evidence of defendant is to the effect that Lowrie visited the Kansas City office June 29, 1906, while he was still assistant sales manager and, as such, had no authority to bind defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial