Massman v. Louisiana Mfg. Cooperage Co

• Decision Date: 07 July 1933
• Docket Number: 29542
• Citation: 149 So. 886,177 La. 999
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: MASSMAN v. LOUISIANA MFG. COOPERAGE CO

149 So. 886

177 La. 999

MASSMAN v. LOUISIANA MFG. COOPERAGE CO

No. 29542

Supreme Court of Louisiana

July 7, 1933

Rehearing Denied October 3, 1933

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; M. M. Boatner Judge.

Action by Solomon Massman against the Louisiana Manufacturing Cooperage Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Walter J. Suthon, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

Alex W Swords and Charles J. Rivet, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

OPINION

OVERTON, Justice.

This is a suit brought by Solomon Massman, now deceased, who is represented in this appeal by the administrator of his succession. The purpose of the suit is to have an accounting from defendant as to the number of barrels sold by it, directly or indirectly, to all oil companies, oil packers, distilleries, and naval stores companies or operators, during the period from July 11, 1924, to July 11, 1926, inclusive, and to recover judgment for $ 12,500, or for such other amount as the aforesaid accounting may show to be due and owing, with legal interest from judicial demand.

The right to an accounting rests upon an alleged contract, dated July 11, 1924, signed by defendant alone, through its president, Charles F. Beck, and reading as follows:

"In consideration of information and assistance given and to be given we agree to pay S. Massman a commission of 5 cents each on all barrels sold by us directly or indirectly to oil companies, oil packers, distilleries, naval stores companies or operators, for a period of two years from this date. Such commission to be paid to S. Massman each month on all shipments during the preceding month, as payments have been made by buyers."

The signature of defendant, through its president, to this instrument, is admitted, though knowledge of the existence of the contract, until the filing of this suit, is denied, as also is all liability purporting to grow out of it.

There is nothing in defendant's charter authorizing its president to sign such a contract, nor is there a resolution of its board of directors authorizing the president to sign such a document, nor is a copy of the document to be found among defendant's papers, nor diet the members of defendant's directorate ever hear of the contract, until this suit was begun, although plaintiff during the period in which he urges that the contract was in full force, visited defendant's plant several times, spoke to members of the directorate, but never once mentioned the contract, but kept its existence...