Girman v. Hampel

• Decision Date: 20 October 1925
• Citation: 205 N.W. 393,188 Wis. 45
• Parties: GIRMAN v. HAMPEL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

188 Wis. 45

205 N.W. 393

GIRMAN

v.HAMPEL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 20, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenosha County; E. B. Belden, Judge.

Action by William Girman against Joseph Hampel. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Higgins & Higgins, of Kenosha (Buckmaster & Hammond, of Kenosha, of counsel), for appellant.

Stewart & Vaudreuil, of Kenosha, for respondent.

DOERFLER, J.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that on or about the 1st day of January, 1922, the defendant hired him as a manager of his meat market, in the city of Kenosha, upon a weekly salary of $30, and 15 per cent. of the monthly operating profits of the business, that the weekly salary was paid in full, but that there is due him as his share of the operating profits, a balance of $514.24. The defendant, in his answer and on the trial, admitted the employment, and that he agreed to pay the weekly salary aforesaid, but denied the claim of the plaintiff in regard to the stipulated percentage of operating profits, but admitted that at the time of the employment he agreed to pay him a bonus from time to time, but that the amount thereof was not fixed, and that the payment thereof and the amount were left entirely to the judgment and good will of the defendant.

The following appears undisputed from the evidence: That the predecessor of the plaintiff had received, in addition to a weekly salary of $30, a bonus of 15 per cent. of the operating profits, and that such bonus was estimated upon the profits as disclosed at the end of each month during the period of employment; that plaintiff's predecessor, at the end of each month, received a statement showing the condition of the business for the month, the operating profit, and the 15 per cent. allowed him as a bonus. Plaintiff testified that at the time of his employment the defendant agreed to compensate him for his services in the same manner as had previously been done with his predecessor. At the end of each month of plaintiff's employment, which covered a period of over two years, the defendant or his bookkeeper handed to him a statement like the one aforesaid. The various monthly statements were introduced in evidence, and it appears therefrom that, with the exception of a few months, an operating profit was shown. Four statements introduced in evidence, instead of showing a profit, showed a loss, but this loss nowhere appeared to be offset against the profits in such a manner as to proportionately reduce the plaintiff's percentage of profits. From time to time during the course of plaintiff's employment the defendant paid to the plaintiff sums of money to be applied upon his share of the operating profits. Plaintiff testified that in the month of July, 1923, after he had been in the employment of the defendant for a period of about 1 1/2 years, and after one operating loss had occurred, he made a demand of the plaintiff for the balance due him as his share of the profits, and that the defendant, in addition to the monthly statement, handed him a slip showing the actual balance due him at that time, which he promised and agreed to pay.

The court found that the total amount of plaintiff's share of the profits was $2,713.10, that the payments made by the defendant on such amount aggregated $2,198.86, and that the balance due the plaintiff is the sum of $514.24, for which amount the court ordered judgment.

There is ample testimony in the record to sustain the judgment. The defendant's evidence is vague and contradictory, and, while he denied the contention of the plaintiff to pay an operating profit of 15 per cent., and while he...