Lynas v. Farms

• Decision Date: 21 May 1937
• Docket Number: No. 112.,112.
• Citation: 273 N.W. 315,279 Mich. 684
• Parties: LYNAS v. MAXWELL FARMS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

279 Mich. 684

273 N.W. 315

LYNAS

v.MAXWELL FARMS.

No. 112.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 21, 1937.

Action by Frederick Lynas against Maxwell Farms. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County; Frank L. Doty, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Arthur J. Adams, of Detroit, for appellant.

Devine, Kent & Devine, of Detroit, for appellee.

CHANDLER, Justice.

The defendant corporation is engaged in the business of distributing milk in the city of Birmingham and its vicinity. Mr. Maxwell Case, the president of the defendant company, and plaintiff had for many years been close personal friends. As a result of such friendship, Mr. Case, on numerous occasions during the years, had been instrumental in securing positions for plaintiff with various companies engaged in milk distribution.

In 1926 plaintiff terminated his employment in New York and accepted a position with a creamery in Detroit offered to him by Case. This employment lasted for a period of 60 or 90 days. Plaintiff, thereafter, decided to enter a business of his own and in due time established a small restaurant on Grand River avenue in Detroit, which he continued to operate in various locations until some time in April, 1934. In the meantime, Mr. Case had organized the defendant corporation. In April, 1934, he prevailed upon plaintiff to dispose of his restaurant and accept a position with defendant as manager of its milk station in the city of Birmingham. Plaintiff thereupon sold the restaurant business having a value of $2,500, as estimated by him, for the sum of $400 and moved to Birmingham. He stated that the restaurant was sacrificed so that he might be immediately available to assume his duties with the defendant company.

At the time he accepted the offer of Mr. Case, it was understood that he was to have a permanent lifetime position with the defendant. His duties consisted of general supervision of the milk distributing station in Birmingham. At the inception of his employment he received a salary of $40 per week which was later increased to $50. When he assumed his duties, defendant was operating three milk routes from the station with a distribution of 1,100 quarts of milk per day. In June, 1935, the business had increased so that at that time defendant was operating eight routes and distributing between 2,400 and 2,600 quarts daily.

In June, 1935, plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff testified that no reason was given for his discharge other than that he was informed by the wife of Mr. Case that they had decided to manage their own business. On the other hand, Mrs. Case asserted that plaintiff was relieved of his position due to his incompetence and that he was so informed.

Plaintiff sues in assumpsit to recover damages for breach of his contract of employment A motion for directed verdict was taken under advisement by the court under the Empson Act. 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 14531 et seq. The court entered judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.

Viewing the record most favorably to plaintiff, it must be determined that the contract in question was one whereby plaintiff was offered a permanent position or one for life so long as his services were satisfactory to defendant. On cross-examination he admitted that it was the understanding that his work should be performed to defendant's satisfaction.

Contracts for permanent employment or for life have been construed by the courts on many occasions. In general, it may be said that in the absence of distinguishing features or provisions or a consideration in addition to the services to be rendered, such contracts are indefinite hirings, terminable at the will of either party. Illustrative of this type of case are the following: Lord v. Goldberg, 81 Cal. 596, 22 P. 1126,15 Am.St.Rep. 82; Rape v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 136 Miss. 38, 100 So. 585, 35 A.L.R. 1422;Arentz v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 249 N.Y. 439, 164 N.E. 342, 62 A.L.R. 231. A similar view has likewise been adopted by this court in Sullivan v. Detroit, Ypsilanti & A. A. R., 135 Mich. 661, ...