Littlefield v. William Bergenthal Co.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1894 |
| Citation | 87 Wis. 394,58 N.W. 743 |
| Parties | LITTLEFIELD v. WILLIAM BERGENTHAL CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; R. N. Austin, Judge.
Action by C. G. Littlefield against the William Bergenthal Company to recover salary. A general demurrer was stricken out as frivolous, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Action to recover salary. The complaint alleges that plaintiff made a written contract with defendant, May 15, 1893, whereby he agreed to act as traveling agent for defendant for one year at a salary of $150 and expenses, payable monthly, with a clause providing for 30 days' notice in case defendant desired to discontinue the employment. The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff entered upon his employment and discharged its duties until July 29, 1893, when defendant, without notice, and without cause, dismissed plaintiff; and that plaintiff has been unable to secure other employment. That there became due plaintiff from defendant, for salary, on the 29th day of August, $520, no part of which has been paid except $228.30, paid in installments during the months of May, June, and July, and that the balance of $291.70 is still due; and for this sum judgment is demanded. A copy of the written contract is attached to the complaint. A general demurrer to the complaint was stricken out as frivolous, and the defendant appealed.Sylvester & Scheiber, for appellant.
Rietbrock & Halsey for respondent.
WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).
The demurrer was properly stricken out. It is said that the written contract does not fix the time when the plaintiff's employment should begin, and that the complaint fails to allege when the plaintiff entered upon his employment. The position is hypercritical. The contract is dated May 15, 1893, and provides that the defendant “agrees to employ, and does hereby employ,” the plaintiff as its traveling agent for “one year commencing on ______.” It seems to us that the reasonable inference upon this clause would be that the plaintiff's employment commenced at once. But, however this may be, the complaint fairly alleges that the plaintiff entered on his employment and performed the duties thereof at some time prior to July 29, 1893, when he was discharged, and that $291.70 is due him for such services. This may not be as definite and certain as could be desired, but it is certainly sufficient as against a general demurrer. Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Theune v. City of Sheboygan
...he need only plead the ultimate fact that he performed work under a contract or agreement with his employer. Littlefield v. William Bergenthal Co. (1894), 87 Wis. 394, 58 N.W. 743; Joubert v. Carli (1870), 26 Wis. 594. The plaintiff alleged that 'said alert is overtime work.' That allegatio......
-
Winkler v. Racine Wagon & Carriage Co.
...be in reduction of damages. Gordon v. Brewster, 7 Wis. 355;La Coursier v. Russell, 82 Wis. 265, 52 N. W. 176;Littlefield v. William Bergenthal Co., 87 Wis. 394, 58 N. W. 743. It savors of overrefinement and extreme technicality to say that the action as framed is not in substance founded up......
- John R. Davis Lumber Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Milwaukee