Jones v. American Home Finding Ass'n

• Decision Date: 05 April 1921
• Docket Number: 33774
• Citation: 182 N.W. 191,191 Iowa 211
• Parties: W. H. JONES, Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME FINDING ASSOCIATION, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

182 N.W. 191

191 Iowa 211

W. H. JONES, Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME FINDING ASSOCIATION, Appellee

No. 33774

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 5, 1921

Appeal from Wapello District Court.--F. M. HUNTER, Judge.

ACTION at law to recover an alleged commission for services by plaintiff under a written contract with defendant. Directed verdict for defendant, and judgment entered against plaintiff for costs. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

W. W Epps, for appellant.

Roberts & Webber, for appellee.

DE GRAFF, J. EVANS, C. J., WEAVER and PRESTON, JJ., concur.

OPINION

DE GRAFF, J.

Plaintiff was a field agent for the defendant association. Under the terms of a written contract, he was employed by the defendant to perform certain services in connection with its charitable work, and, among other things, to secure life memberships, disseminate its literature, and solicit funds for the prosecution of the objects and purposes of said association. In consideration of the services performed on the part of plaintiff, it was agreed that:

"W H. Jones shall receive as a compensation * * * one half of all money secured by his personal solicitations and paid to him by individuals and counties."

It is alleged by plaintiff that, under and by virtue of said contract, and while in the line of his duty, he solicited one Emanuel Zaring, of Washington, Iowa, for a subscription to said defendant association, and did procure from him a gift of $ 1,000, to be made in the form of a legacy in the will of said Zaring; that there was paid to the said defendant association from the estate of the said Zaring the sum of $ 1,000 under his will; that the said association has failed and refused to pay the plaintiff one half of the bequest so made, or the sum of $ 500.

At the close of plaintiff's testimony, upon motion of the defendant, the court directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant, and verdict and judgment were entered accordingly. The answer to either one of two questions determines the correctness of the ruling of the trial court: (1) Did the plaintiff make a prima-facie case on the evidence offered in support of his petition? (2) Is the contract, so far as it relates to the alleged commission, contrary to public policy?

I. A reading of the record convinces us that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the allegations of plaintiff's petition; and, in passing, it may be said that the contract had in contemplation moneys actually collected by the plaintiff, and also such contracts secured through the agency of plaintiff as were enforcible obligations, in the form of subscriptions to the defendant association. Furthermore, there is no competent evidence tending to show that the said bequest was secured by and through the personal solicitation of this plaintiff, conceding, for the moment, that the bequest comes within the purview of the contract.

No purpose will be served in reciting the evidence upon which plaintiff predicates a recovery. Sufficient to state our conclusion that it does not justify a recovery.

II. It is a well-settled principle of the law that, if a contract binds the maker to do something opposed to the public policy of the state, or conflicts with the...