Hartford v. Massachusetts Bowling Alleys
| Decision Date | 01 January 1918 |
| Citation | 118 N.E. 188,229 Mass. 30 |
| Parties | HARTFORD v. MASSACHUSETTS BOWLING ALLEYS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court. Suffolk County; L. E. Hitchcock, Judge.
Action by Clayton W. Hartford against the Massachusetts Bowling Alleys. There was verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions sustained.
Kelly & Sheenan, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Benj. A. Levy, Levy & Markell, and Jas. M. Graham, all of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff seeks to recover for the breach of an alleged agreement to hire him as manager of the defendant's bowling alleys for one year, at a salary of thirty dollars a week, and five per cent. of the net profits. From the evidence disclosed by the meager record the jury could find the following facts:
Edward R. Sherburne was president, Benjamin A. Levy was clerk and Peter M. Leavitt treasurer of the defendant corporation. These three constituted the board of directors and owned all the capital stock. The company was incorporated in 1915, and apparently the alleys were opened for business late in December of that year. As matter of fact the entire work of fitting up and furnishing the bowling alleys, and doing whatever was necessary in opening them up for business, including the hiring of help, was in charge of Leavitt; and the other directors seem to have taken no active part.
On or about December 10, 1915, the plaintiff talked with Leavitt in reference to entering the employ of the defendant as manager of its bowling alleys, and, as the jury have specially found, an agreement to that effect was made, for a term of one year. The plaintiff started to work that day, and continued as manager for four weeks. Sherburne testified that the hiring of the plaintiff ‘was left to Mr. Leavitt’; and both he and Levy saw the plaintiff working at the defendant's place of business, raised no question as to Leavitt's authority to employ him, and made no inquiry about the terms of his employment. On February 5, 1916, Sherburne informed the plaintiff that a third interest in the business had been sold, and notified him that he would not be needed after that night. At the trial the defendant submitted extracts from its by-laws, dealing with the authority of the Board of Directors to appoint a manager and other employés; and also evidence that at no meeting of the board was Leavitt, or Sherburne or any other person authorized to employ the plaintiff.
The trial judge ruled that ‘there was no evidence that Leavitt had authority to make a contract, binding upon the defendant, to hire the plaintiff for one year,’ and directed a verdict for the defendant.
In our opinion the ruling was wrong. The office of the by-law was to define the powers and duties of the directors toward the corporation and between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lydia E. Pinkham Med. Co. v. Gove
...from time to time or to modify or recall the grant. We have no doubt that the directors could do this. Hartford v. Massachusetts Bowling Alleys, Inc., 229 Mass. 30, 118 N.E. 188;Gerrish Dredging Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 247 Mass. 162, 141 N.E. 867;Henderson v. Raymond Syndicate,......
-
Choate v. Bd. of Assessors of City of Boston
...an inference is warranted that one was acting in behalf of and with the knowledge and consent of another. Hartford v. Massachusetts Bowling Alleys, Inc., 229 Mass. 30, 118 N.E. 188;R. T. Adams Co. v. Israel, 244 Mass. 139, 138 N.E. 319;Hamilton v. Coster, 249 Mass. 391, 144 N.E. 226;Capitol......
-
Bloomberg v. Greylock Broadcasting Co.
...& Son, Inc. v. Axelrod, 340 Mass. 26, 30-31, 162 N.E.2d 763; note, 61 Harv.L.Rev. 867, 869. Cf. Hartford v. Massachusetts Bowling Alleys, Inc., 229 Mass 30, 32-33, 118 N.E. 188; Restatement 2d: Agency, § 43. With respect to this sale of a major asset of Greylock, Podolsky's authority to mak......
-
Bomeisler v. M. Jacobson & Sons Trust, 3627
...N.E. 32; Nims v. Mt. Hermon Boys' School, 160 Mass. 177, 35 N.E. 776, 22 L. R.A. 364, 39 Am.St.Rep. 467; Hartford v. Massachusetts Bowling Alleys, Inc., 229 Mass. 30, 118 N.E. 188; North Anson Lumber Co. v. Smith, 209 Mass. 333, 95 N.E. 838; Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413, 67 N.......