Knight v. Whitmore Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1924
• Citation: 248 Mass. 531,143 N.E. 495
• Parties: KNIGHT v. WHITMORE MFG. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

248 Mass. 531

143 N.E. 495

KNIGHT

v.WHITMORE MFG. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

April 14, 1924.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Richard W. Irwin, Judge.

Action of contract by Harold Knight against the Whitmore Manufacturing Company for breach of a contract of employment. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Brooks, Kirby, Keedy & Brooks, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

Frank J. O'Neil, of Holyoke, for defendant.

WAIT, J.

The plaintiff sues for breach of a written contract of employment for a term of three years from November 1, 1916, alleged to have been made by the defendant. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the case comes before us on a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict for the defendant ‘on the ground that on all the pleadings and the evidence, the plaintiff cannot recover,’ which states that:

‘The defendant's sole contention is that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to warrant the finding that the alleged contract was expressly or impliedly authorized, ratified, or acquiesced in by the defendant.’

In August, 1916, the plaintiff, then apparently employed at Kalamazoo, Mich., entered into negotiations with the defendant, and at Springfield met a representative of the defendant, Arthur B. Gladwin, its president and general manager, who employed its help. Early in October he received the following letter, on the letter head of the defendant:

‘Holyoke, Mass., October 2, 1916.

‘Mr. Knight: We hereby agree to employ you as superintendent of our mill for three years, to take effect from November 1, 1916, at $6,000.00 per year. Your duties will be classified as superintendent of the mill, taking full charge of the coating department and its contingent responsibilities. We want you to assume full responsibility of our manufacturing departments; all employees in the coating room, on the coating machines, in the reeling room and in the finishing department are to be under your supervision. In short, we want you to assume full responsibility for the manufacture of our product, watching the efficiency of the machines and passing on the finished goods. Please be kind enough to send your acknowledgment of the contract, and oblige.

‘Whitmore Mfg. Co., A. B. Gladwin.’

In order to help out his employers at Kalamazoo, the plaintiff asked for from one to three weeks beyond November 1, and by telegram, signed ‘A. B. Gladwin,’ the time was extended two weeks. This extension was confirmed by a letter, on the letter head of the defendant, signed ‘Whitmore Mfg. Co., A. B. Gladwin.’ Under date of October 21, 1916, the plaintiff sent a copy of the letter of October 2 with the following addition:

‘I hereby acknowledge the receipt of your letter of October 2, 1916, of which the above is a copy, and accept the same and agree to it as a contract.’

On November 3, 1916, the plaintiff wired by day letter:

‘To Arthur B. Gladwin, Prest. Whitmore Mfg. Co., Holyoke Mass.: * * * Will report at your mill Nov. 14th. Am mailing formal acceptance of contract for your records.’

This was acknowledged, on the letter head of the defendant, under date of November 4, 1916, in a letter signed ‘Whitmore Mfg. Co., A. B. Gladwin.’

The plaintiff reported for duty on November 14, 1916, and there is no dispute that thereafter he worked for the defendant, and that he was paid by the defendant at the rate called for by the contract.

He was employed to make very material changes in the machinery, equipment, and methods of the defendant's mill, which would, necessarily, take time to be carried out.

Gladwin testified that the plaintiff continued to serve under the contract, and was still so serving when Gladwin retired as president and general manager in February, 1918.

One Heywood testified that he was treasurer and representative of a majority of the stock of the defendant when the plaintiff began his superintendence; that he knew of his coming and observed how he did his work; that during the first month the plaintiff was there,...