Levy v. Son

• Decision Date: 15 May 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 425.)
• Citation: 145 Ga. 245,88 S.E. 959
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: LEVY. v. M. L. HIMMEL & SON et al.

145 Ga. 245

88 S.E. 959

LEVY.

v.M. L. HIMMEL & SON et al.

(No. 425.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 15, 1916.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; W. G. Charlton, Judge.

Action by diaries Levy against M. L. Himmel & Son and others.Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.Affirmed.

Charles Levy filed his petition against M. la Himmel & Son, and alleged, in substance, as follows: He has acted as representative of the defendants in Savannah and the surrounding territory during the 18 months preceding the filing of the petition, and has made a number of sales of store fixtures manufactured by the defendants.The amount of the sales in the name of the purchaser and the portion belonging to the plaintiff are shown in an exhibit attached to the petition.The defendants agreed that the plaintiff was to receive as his compensation 15 per cent. of the amount of the sales; the agreement being made orally and by letters.On the basis of the agreement the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,007.39, after allowing credit of certain amounts paid to plaintiff.He has endeavored to procure from the defendants a statement showing the exact amount of his earnings which they admitted were due him, and which were to become due in the future on contracts already made, and a division of the collections made according to the agreement; but the defendants have refused to furnish such statement, or to check over with him in order that he might ascertain his interest as shown by their books, or to make payments due to him.In neither the contracts made with the persons to whom goods were sold nor in the bill of particulars of such sales does plaintiff's interest appear.The method of payment by such persons was direct remittances to the defendants, without any notification to plaintiff.The defendants refuse to advise the plaintiff when such remittances were made.He has learned, however, that more money has come into their hands than they have accounted to him for, and they hold a considerable sum which is his money.They are nonresidents of the state of Georgia, and are residents of the state of Maryland in the city of Baltimore.Certain outstanding debts are due them upon contracts for goods sold by the plaintiff in the manner and form above alleged, and the debtors are residents of Chatham county, Ga., and within the jurisdiction of this court(setting out the names of the debtors and the amounts alleged to be due by each).The foregoing items are not due, and consequently are not subject to a division between plaintiff and defendants until maturity.However, on account of the arbitrary and unreasonable manner in which they have treated him in regard to payments already made to them on contracts sold byhim, he fears the loss of his portion of the sales and of other amounts due him by them in the event they secure the payments and take the money out of the state of Georgia and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, which they are now trying to do.Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law to enforce his rights, in that only a portion of the contracts above set out have matured and been paid...