Greer v. Arlington Mills Manufacturing Company
Decision Date | 10 March 1899 |
Citation | 43 A. 609,17 Del. 581 |
Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Parties | JOHN GREER v. THE ARLINGTON MILLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Delaware |
Superior Court, New Castle County, February Term, 1899.
ACTION on the case (Nos. 136 and 137--consolidated--February Term 1898). See facts in the charge of court.
Verdict for defendant.
Robert G. Harman and Horace Greeley Knowles for plaintiff.
Levi C Bird and Andrew E. Sanborn for defendant.
OPINION
PENNEWILL, J. charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:--John Greer, the plaintiff in this suit, alleges that he entered into a contract or agreement with the Arlington Mills Manufacturing Company, the defendant, on March 17, 1886, under which he was to receive $ 5000.00 a year for his services as manager of said Arlington Mills Manufacturing Company, and that in pursuance of said contract, he, the plaintiff, did act as said manager from March 17, 1886, up to about the last of the year, in December, 1896, at which time he was discharged by the defendant without any sufficient cause and without any fault on his part. He contends that the original hiring in 1886 was a hiring for a period of one year, and having continued to render the same service after the first year, it became therefore a hiring from year to year, subject to the same terms and conditions as in the contract of the first year. He insists, therefore, that having been discharged in December, 1896, when the year of employment would not have expired until March 17, 1897, and for no fault of his, he is entitled in law to recover in this action the proportion of the salary for a year which the time from the date of discharge till March 17, 1897, bears to the whole year, to wit, about one-quarter of a year's salary. This is his claim for salary. He also claims that on March 22, 1892, the defendant agreed to give him 2 1/2 per cent. of the net profits of the business of the Arlington Mills Manufacturing Company, in addition to the salary mentioned in the original contract, but concedes that the only year in which there were any such net profits that could be recovered in this action was the year 1893. He also alleges that there is due and owing to him from the defendant the further sum of $ 42.50 for services rendered between the date of discharge and the 17th day of March, 1897.
The defendant, on the other hand, avers that the plaintiff together with his brother Joseph Greer, was employed to manage the business of the mills in consideration of the sum of $ 5000.00 per annum, beginning on the 19th day of March, 1886; but denies that such hiring was for the period of one year. It insists that such hiring was for an indefinite period, and claims that the defendant had the right at any time to terminate the agreement without assigning any reason or cause therefor. The defendant therefore contends that the plaintiff has no right to recover any salary for the time intervening between the date of discharge and the 17th of March, 1897, and asks the court to so instruct you. This request or prayer makes it necessary for us to consider and determine the question whether the contract relied on by the plaintiff for his claim of salary was a contract for a year, or only a contract at a fixed salary for an indefinite period and subject to be terminated at any time at the option of either of the parties thereto. This is a very important question in this case and we have considered it as fully and carefully as we were able to do. We do not find that this question has ever been distinctly passed upon by any court in this state. It is, so far as we are able to tell, a new question here, although frequently judicially considered in England, and in some of the states of our own country. And such a contract of hiring as the one before us has been quite uniformly held in England to import a hiring for a year, although the rule has not been inflexible even there, where originally the question generally arose not between master and servant, but in settlement cases. In this country, however, the contrary doctrine seems to prevail, although some decisions have followed the English rule. But it will be found upon examination, we think, that such authorities are for the most part either based almost, if not entirely, upon English text books and decisions, or upon some particular facts or circumstances surrounding the parties and the transaction in the particular case, indicating the intention of the parties. For example, Story in his work on Master and Servant, Sec. 952 c., says: Every authority cited by Story to sustain the text is an English case, and not one in this country is mentioned. Wood, in his Law of Master and Servant, Sec. 134, very clearly states the difference between the rule which obtains in this country and the one in England, and I can find it nowhere more intelligently and satisfactorily stated. It is as follows:
In the case of Martin vs. Insurance Company, 148 N.Y 117, 42 N.E. 416, in the Court of Appeals, and which seems to be the leading case on the subject in this country, it appears that the plaintiff entered the employ of the defendant in 1881, and was placed in charge of the real estate department at a salary of $ 5000 a year. From the first of January, 1883, he received salary at the rate of $ 6500 a year under an arrangement made in February, 1883. In February, 1884, the salary was increased to the rate of $ 10,000, payable from January 1st, 1884. Salary was paid monthly. Without further agreement of any kind plaintiff continued in the discharge of his duties until April 13, 1892, when he received a letter from the president of the defendant, notifying him that his services would not be needed after April 30, 1892. Plaintiff replied to this letter April 14, 1892, stating that he accepted the defendant's ultimatum. A week later he wrote a second letter in which he sought to explain the first one as follows, viz: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stinson v. Edgemoor Iron Works, Civil Action No. 343.
...1487, as extended by subsequent Supreme Court cases, is bound to follow the Delaware Superior Court case of Greer v. Arlington Mills Co., 1 Pennewill, Del., 581, 43 A. 609, which it claims is authority for holding that the interoffice memorandum constitutes a hiring at will and not a hiring......
- Drake v. Hercules Powder Co.
-
Cooper v. Anderson-Stokes, Inc., ANDERSON-STOKE
...hired for a specified sum "per year", he has been hired for an indefinite term and may be terminated at will. Greer v. Arlington Mills Mfg. Co., Del.Super., 43 A. 609, 612 (1899); Stinson v. Edgemoor Iron Works, 55 F.Supp. 861, 863-64 (D.Del.1944). See also Drake v. Hercules Powder Co., Del......
-
Drake v. Hercules Powder Company
... ... will and was determinable at the will of either party ... Greer v. Arlington Mills Co., 17 Del. 581, 1 ... Penne. 581, 43 A. 609. This ... ...
-
At Will Employment in Washington: a Review of Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. and Its Progeny
...intent. 17. See, e.g., Clarke v. Atlantic Stevedoring Co., 163 F. 423 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1908); Greer v. Arlington Mills Mfg. Co., 17 Del. 581, 43 A. 609 (Sup. Ct. 1899); Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 117, 42 N.E. 416 18. Blades, Employment At Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limitin......