Hoover v. Perkins Windmill & Axe Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 866,41 Minn. 143
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: HOOVER v PERKINS WINDMILL & AXE CO.

41 Minn. 143

42 N.W. 866

HOOVERvPERKINS WINDMILL & AXE CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 2, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A contract for service as agent construed as not contemplating any definite period of service, although it provided for yearly settlements. Either party had the right to terminate the relation at any time.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HICKS, Judge.

Action by John M. Hoover against the Perkins Windmill & Axe Company for breach of contract of agency. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from an order overruling a motion for new trial.

Russell, Calhoun & Reed, for appellant.

Keith, Evans, Thompson & Fairchild, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

In January, 1886, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written contract, by the terms of which the plaintiff became the agent of the defendant, for the sale of windmills in the state of Minnesota. It is unnecessary to state with particularity all the provisions of the contract. It may be said generally, however, that the mills were to be shipped to the plaintiff at an agreed schedule price. He was to bear all the expense incident to keeping and selling them, and to remit the proceeds of all sales to the defendant, himself guarantying the payment of all notes taken upon sales. The defendant was to return to the plaintiff all notes, cash, and drafts so remitted, after it had realized therefrom the schedule price of the mills shipped to the plaintiff; and when the defendant should have “collected for all of the goods as above, and the aforesaid notes shall be paid for each year's business, then they shall pay to the party of the second part [plaintiff] three dollars for each windmill sold that year, to pay him for the risk in securing the payment of said notes and accounts.” There was nothing in the contract relative to the time during which it should continue in force, unless some inference is to be drawn from the language which we have recited and italicised. In June, 1887, in the course of the settlement of some matters growing out of the above contract, the parties entered into a further agreement in writing, in which, among other things, it was agreed that the business between them should “be continued” under the previously executed contract; it being further agreed that the parties should examine, compare, and check up accounts between them “during the month of January of each year, and as much oftener as either of the parties may desire...