LaRson v. Foss

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Citation: 137 Wis. 304,118 N.W. 804
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: LARSON v. FOSS.

137 Wis. 304

118 N.W. 804

LARSON

v.FOSS.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; W. C. Silverthorn, Judge.

Action by Ole Larson against M. L. Foss to recover on contract for personal services. The controversy was as to the amount due and involved two counterclaims. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

There was evidence to the effect that defendant, while running a general lumbering business with his son Louis in charge as general foreman, employed plaintiff to work in the woods at $32 per month, doing common labor; that after working nine days Louis set plaintiff at work in the capacity of foreman, increasing his wages to $40 per month; that he continued at work as foreman in the woods and defendant's mill yard without anything further being said about compensation till the time of settlement between the parties; that defendant then insisted plaintiff was only entitled to $30 per month, and that Louis had no authority to change the contract, while plaintiff claimed he was entitled to $40 per month. There was evidence tending to show that Louis had general charge of the work, hiring and discharging men, fixing wages and acting in the capacity of general agent and that defendant knew soon after plaintiff commenced as foreman of the fact in that regard and made no suggestion but that the change met with his approval. Both defendant and his son testified that the latter had no authority to make the alleged bargain, but Louis admitted he put plaintiff in the position of foreman, promising him additional wages. There was a conflict between Louis and plaintiff as to when the bargain was made and as to the amount of the increased wages agreed upon and the length of time the latter worked as foreman. The jury found in plaintiff's favor, rendering a special verdict, as follows: The contract at first was for wages at $32 per month. Plaintiff worked nine days under such contract. Defendant's son, assuming to act in his behalf, then made a new contract with plaintiff, that he should work as foreman and receive $40 per month. Plaintiff was promised the $40 per month as long as he acted as foreman. He so acted 371 days. Defendant knew plaintiff was acting as foreman under a contract made with Louis. Plaintiff had good reason to believe Louis had authority to make the contract. Defendant is entitled to credit of $3.50 on the first counterclaim and $36.61, on the second. In accordance with this verdict judgment was rendered in plaintiff's favor for $141.75, with costs.Reid Smart & Curtis, for appellant.

John Van Hecke, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts as above).

As will be seen by the statement, the case was submitted to the jury, supposing there was evidence tending to prove appellant's son, either acting by apparent or mere assumption of authority, made the alleged contract with respondent; that the latter, in reasonable belief of such authority existing, joined in the agreement; that appellant, thereafter, with knowledge of such facts as reasonably charged him with notice of the existence of some new agreement, the benefit of which he was enjoying, confirmed respondent in his impression as to the son's authority by not raising any objection to the change, and that he thereby ratified it.

There can be no question but that it was competent for respondent under the pleadings to establish the contract sued on, either by showing actual authority of appellant's son in the matter, or apparent authority and reasonable reliance thereon, or assumption of such authority and such reliance and ratification by appellant. It is the opinion of the court that there was sufficient evidence to establish the contract on either of the two theories the case was submitted on, and that some evidence allowed under objection, to which our attention is called, was competent in that view.

The case is...