Hall v. International Liberty Union of the World

• Decision Date: 27 November 1914
• Citation: 161 Ky. 299,170 S.W. 631
• Parties: HALL v. INTERNATIONAL LIBERTY UNION OF THE WORLD.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

170 S.W. 631

161 Ky. 299

HALL v. INTERNATIONAL LIBERTY UNION OF THE WORLD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 27, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Floyd County.

Action by Ulysses S. Hall against the International Liberty Union of the World. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

A. R Crislip, of Prestonsburg, for appellant.

B. S Wilson, of Morehead, for appellee.

HOBSON C.J.

The International Liberty Union of the World is a fraternal insurance society, incorporated under the laws of Kentucky. On December 30, 1912, it entered into a written contract with Ulysses S. Hall by which it appointed him its official deputy to solicit and secure applications for all forms of membership issued by the Union and sold through deputies "in the following territory: Floyd county Kentucky." He was authorized to solicit applications, to appoint subworkers for himself in the territory, and personally and through subworkers to procure applications for membership. He agreed by the contract:

(1) To give one-half or more of his time to the prosecution of the work in behalf of the Union, and to act exclusively for it during the life of the contract.

(2) To follow the instructions of the supreme officers of the Union at all times.

(3) To solicit for membership in the Union on an average of not less than three, if practicable every working day of the week.

(4) To make five or more solicitations on every Monday before noon, regardless of the weather conditions.

(5) To try faithfully to secure and turn in not less than fifteen points each calendar month.

(6) To forward twice a week all applications secured and all money received.

(7) To render a satisfactory weekly report to the Union.

The contract is a very long one, but for the purposes of this case it is unnecessary to set out all its provisions. He brought this suit against the Union, charging that on or about January 15, 1913, the defendant received applications for membership which were sent it by one Coburn and one Tackett from Floyd county and from the territory he was then working; that the defendant allowed these and others to represent it as its agents, and continued to accept their work of encroaching upon his territory after it was notified of such encroachment; giving him no credit for the work, and without requiring them to act as subworkers under him; that by reason of this taking of his territory without cause on his part he was compelled to cease further work for the defendant, and was thereby forced out of a profitable employment, to his damage in the sum of $3,000, for which he prayed judgment. The defendant demurred to the petition, the court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff thereupon filed an amended petition, in which he realleged in more detail the same facts, and also alleged that he complied with each and every part of the contract; that he solicited applications, secured applications for membership, and turned them into the defendant; and that he distributed literature sent him by the defendant. The defendant demurred to the petition as amended; the court sustained the demurrer; the plaintiff declining to plead further, the action was dismissed; and the plaintiff appeals.

The written contract was filed with the petition as an exhibit, and it is insisted that the judgment should be affirmed, because (1) the written contract does not give the plaintiff an exclusive agency in Floyd county; (2) the petition fails to show a breach of the contract; (3) it does not show that the plaintiff has complied with the contract. These objections will be considered in the order stated.

1. In addition to those above indicated, the contract contains, among others, these provisions:

"The deputy may appoint subworkers to assist him in securing applications for membership, and may fix their compensation, which compensation shall be paid by the deputy from the amounts provided herein; * * * such subworkers being responsible to the deputy, the deputy being held responsible to the Union for the work of subworkers." Sec. 10.

"The deputy hereby agrees to do his best to get honest, energetic subworkers and train them in this work, paying them such commission fees as he sees fit, out of his own allowance. He further agrees to notify the Union when such subworkers become proficient enough to take charge of territory for themselves under direction and control of the Union."

...