Klingman & Scoular v. Racine-Sattley Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1910 |
| Citation | 128 N.W. 1109,149 Iowa 634 |
| Parties | KLINGMAN & SCOULAR, Appellants, v. RACINE-SATTLEY COMPANY, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. JESSE A. MILLER, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages for breach of written contract. At the conclusion of the evidence for both parties the court, on motion of defendant, withdrew from the consideration of the jury a portion of the plaintiffs' claim and as to the balance a verdict was rendered for plaintiffs in the sum of $ 105, on which judgment was entered. From this judgment plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Parrish & Dowell, and T. A. Cheshire, for appellants.
Read & Read and E. K. Maine, for appellee.
OPINION
The principal question discussed by counsel is as to the correctness of the action of the court in determining that there was no evidence to support the portion of the claim which was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, and the issues and evidence need only be stated in so far as they related to that question.
Plaintiffs entered into a written contract with defendant, a corporation engaged at Des Moines in the wholesale business of selling agricultural implements throughout the United States, by which contract plaintiffs were to have the right for five years from August, 1905, to make use of defendant's repository and warerooms without rent or charge for the purpose of carrying on the retail business of selling defendant's machinery within certain specified territory, and also selling on their own account specified lines of goods consisting in general of buggies and harness. As compensation for the selling of defendant's machinery the plaintiffs were to receive the difference between the wholesale price of such machinery and the retail price at which plaintiffs should sell it, and plaintiffs were to pay defendant a percentage of the actual profit on goods which they were allowed to sell, not procured at wholesale from the defendant. Plaintiffs continued in business under this arrangement for two years, at the end of which time the contract was rescinded by defendant and plaintiffs were excluded from the further sale of defendant's machinery and from further use of defendant's building. For this alleged breach of contract plaintiffs sought to recover such profits as would have accrued to them during the remaining three years of the contract had they been allowed to carry it out; and the court holding that there was no evidence as to what profits would thus have accrued took all questions as to such profits from the jury.
Counsel on both sides concede that under the authority of Hichhorn v. Bradley, 117 Iowa 130, loss of profits of a business may be recovered, if the plaintiff is prevented from carrying on such business by breach of contract on the part of the defendant, and the sole question argued in this respect is as to whether, considering the business done during the two years of its continuance under the contract, there was any evidence which could be made the basis of estimating the profits which would have accrued during the remaining three years of the contract had defendant not revoked it.
In the discussion of this question we think that the trial judge, in his expression of views preserved in the record, erred in excluding the profits, if any, which plaintiffs realized in the sale of goods which they were permitted to handle, aside from the machinery sold for the defendant. It was evidently in the contemplation of the parties that in the use of the room furnished to plaintiffs in defendant's building, for the sale not only of defendant's machinery, but also of lines of goods carried by the plaintiffs, profits would arise and these profits were as much in the contemplation of the parties as the profits on the machinery sold by defendant. It does not follow that plaintiffs could have made as large profits on their lines of goods carrying on their business elsewhere, and if the evidence shows profits of this character they should as we think, plainly have been taken into account in determining whether any profits were realized by plaintiffs in carrying on the business under the contract.
Under this view of the contract we must proceed to determine whether there was any evidence tending to show that profits were realized by plaintiffs in carrying on their business during the two years of the continuance of such business under the contract. There was evidence for plaintiffs tending to show that the profits of the business during the first year of operation under the contract were $ 2,326.16, which included $ 456.12 of profits on sales of plaintiffs' own goods, and that during the second year of the contract profits aggregating $ 2,807.63 were realized, of which the sum of $ 849.69 was realized on the sale of plaintiffs' own goods. But in estimating these profits the plaintiffs deducted from gross receipts nothing by way of expenses except small amounts for janitor service, telephone service and like items and testified that the business was carried on by themselves individually, giving their...
To continue reading
Request your trial