Heitman v. Kaltenbach & Stephens, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1920
• Docket Number: No. 40.,40.
• Citation: 112 A. 306
• Parties: HEITMAN v. KALTENBACH & STEPHENS, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

112 A. 306

HEITMAN

v. KALTENBACH & STEPHENS, Inc.

No. 40.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 15, 1920.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by William N. Heitman against Kaltenbach & Stephens, Incorporated. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wolber & Gilhooly, of Newark, for appellant.

Heine, Bostwick & Bradner, of Newark (Palmer Bradner and John W. Bostwick, Jr., both of Newark, on the brief), for respondent.

TRENCHARD, J. This is the defendant's appeal from a judgment founded upon the verdict of a jury at the Essex circuit in favor of the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract of employment for the year 1918. We are of the opinion that the appeal is without merit.

A consideration of the grounds of appeal argued renders necessary a statement of the salient facts which the evidence at the trial tended to show. They are as follows: The defendant company is a manufacturer of silk ribbons. The plaintiff had been employed by it for a number of years, and always by the year. He was manager of the merchandise department. A considerable portion of the output was sold by salesmen having designated territories and the plaintiff has charge of all so-called "house accounts," accounts which had not been specifically assigned to some salesman and on which no commissions were paid, and these accounts constituted a very large part of the total sales of the company. In June, 1917, the plaintiff's salary was increased from $2,600 to $3,510 per year, and he was paid biweekly. In November, 1917. the officers of the defendant corporation held a meeting at its factory in Newark, which was attended by the officers of the company, the New York salesmen, and the plaintiff. The officers of the company then and there stated that those present would be paid for their services in 1918 on a different basis; that is to say, instead of paying each salesman the commission actually earned upon sales made by him or in his territory, the "house accounts" (i. e., those sold independently of the salesmen, and over which the plaintiff exercised supervision) would be added to the total amount of sales made by the salesmen in their respective territories and a bonus of 2 per cent. declared on the total sales so arrived at in excess of $1,500,000, such bonus to be distributed at the end of the year 1918, and as the officers of the company should determine. The plaintiff desired to ascertain what portion of the bonus would be paid to him, and accordingly inquired of the company's officers, who told him that the company would be satisfied to pay him such portion as the New York salesmen might...