Joseph Campbell Preserve Company v. Holcomb
Decision Date | 09 May 1903 |
Docket Number | 13,099 |
Citation | 67 Kan. 48,72 P. 552 |
Parties | JOSEPH CAMPBELL PRESERVE COMPANY v. W. A. HOLCOMB |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1903.
Error from Wyandotte district court; E. L. FISCHER, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
CONTRACT--Employer and Employee--Proof of Satisfaction of Employer Necessary. A contract of employment at a salary of seventy-five dollars per month and traveling expenses provided that should the employee continue his services for an entire year, and should the character of his business as to volume, etc., and his manner of conducting it be satisfactory to the employer, the latter would make the salary equivalent to one hundred dollars per month by the payment of the twenty-five dollars excess at the close of the year, the determination of which should be left entirely to the employer. In an action to recover the excess salary held, that satisfaction of the employer at the end of the year must be proved.
Lathrop, Morrow, Fox & Moore, and McAnany & Alden, for plaintiff in error.
George W. Littick, for defendant in error.
OPINION
An offer of employment was made by a letter in the following terms:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campbell v. Hart
...limited to transactions involving personal taste and preference. All this follows from the decision in the case of Campbell (Preserve) Co. v. Holcomb, 67 Kan. 48, 72 P. 552. In the following cases the principles upon which Campbell (Preserve) Co. v. Holcomb was determined were applied to tr......
-
Dickey v. The Coffeyville Vitrified Brick and Tile Company
...Andis v. Personett, 108 Ind. 202, 9 N.E. 101.) The condition in this contract is different from that before the court in Campbell v. Holcomb, 67 Kan. 48, 72 P. 552. In that case the agreement was that an employee receive as salary a stated sum per annum and twenty-five dollars a month addit......
-
The Superior Motor Company v. The Chevrolet Motor Company of Kansas City
...for all cases in which payment of reward is left to the will of the person offering it, by the decision in the case of Campbell v. Holcomb, 67 Kan. 48, 72 P. 552. accepted the following proposition to employ him as a commercial traveler: "Now, we make you this proposition: We are willing to......
-
Hollingsworth v. Colthurst
... ... this follows from the decision in the case of Campbell v ... Holcomb, 67 Kan. 48, 72 P. 552. In the following ... ...