Lynas v. Farms, No. 112.

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

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.

[273 N.W. 316]

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...