Farmer v. Studebaker Corp. of America
| Decision Date | 10 July 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,643 - (188) |
| Citation | 148 N.W. 285,126 Minn. 346 |
| Parties | HENRY C. FARMER v. STUDEBAKER CORPORATION OF AMERICA |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Washington county to recover $1,357.72 commissions earned by plaintiff under the agreement mentioned in the opinion. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint. The case was tried before Stolberg, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of $1,136.10, and interest in favor of plaintiff. From the order denying its motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Contract -- question for jury.
1. The controversy as to whether plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, whereby plaintiff became agent for the sale of defendant's automobiles within certain designated territory, and, if so, as to whether defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a commission upon all sales to residents within such territory, by whomsoever made, was properly submitted to the jury and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Change of plea.
2. Defendant, having conceded at the trial that the sales in controversy were made within the designated territory, cannot urge, on appeal, that such sales were in fact made outside such territory.
Evidence -- discretion of court.
3. Excluding a circular, of which plaintiff had no knowledge and which was offered in evidence by defendant solely for the purpose of explaining the acts of its manager, was not an abuse of discretion.
Cobb, Wheelwright & Dille, for appellant.
J. N. Searles, for respondent.
Plaintiff claims that, in August, 1912, he entered into a contract with defendant, whereby he became the agent of defendant for the sale of its automobiles within certain designated territory, and whereby defendant agreed to pay him a stipulated commission upon all sales made to residents within such territory, whether such sales were made by himself or by others. Defendant denied any such agreement. Plaintiff brought this action to recover the stipulated commission upon five sales made by others to residents within the designated territory and recovered a verdict. Thereafter defendant made the usual alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial; this motion was denied and defendant appealed.
The main question involved is one of fact. Plaintiff had been the agent of defendant during the preceding year under a written contract which by its terms expired on August 1, 1912. This contract did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make sales to residents within the designated territory, and he does not claim that he was entitled thereunder to commissions upon such sales made by others. In the early part of August, 1912, plaintiff and defendant's manager at Minneapolis had an inter view which resulted in the sale of three machines to or through plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts that, at this time, he and the manager made a new oral contract for the ensuing year, and that, as a part of the transaction, he purchased these three machines. He also testifies that the manager stated as one of the terms of the contract that "you will get a commission on every machine sold in this territory mentioned to residents of the territory for the coming season, commencing August 7th." The manager strenuously denies making any such agreement, or any agreement whatever concerning the business of the following season, and claims that the transaction was confined to matters pertaining to the sale of the three machines mentioned. The controversy as to whether a contract for the ensuing year had been made, and as to the terms of such contract, if made, was properly submitted to the jury. They found for plaintiff upon these issues, and, as the evidence is sufficient to sustain their finding and it has been approved by the trial court, this court cannot disturb it.
Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial