McGuire v. Interurban Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1924
• Docket Number: No. 35039.,35039.
• Parties: MCGUIRE v. INTERURBAN RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

199 Iowa 203

200 N.W. 55

MCGUIRE

v.INTERURBAN RY. CO.

No. 35039.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 26, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Lester L. Thompson, Judge.

Action to recover for services alleged to be in addition to the admitted employment of plaintiff and for overtime. A verdict for defendant was directed at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and from the judgment thereon against him plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.A. D. Pugh, of Des Moines, for appellant.

W. H. McHenry and Corwin R. Bennett, both of Des Moines, for appellee.

VERMILION, J.

The appellant brought this action to recover for services alleged to have been rendered to the appellee. There are certain facts about which there is no dispute. Camp Dodge, a large military training camp used by the United States government during, and for some time after the close of the late war, was situated on appellee's line of interuban railway. From the time of the location by the government of the camp at that site up to the end of the period covered by the present claim appellant was in the employ of the appellee as general agent at Camp Dodge, and during a considerable portion of the time was also designated and addressed as superintendent of terminals. He was paid and received a stipulated salary for his services in these capacities.

It is the claim of appellant, as gathered from his petition, that, in addition to the services performed as general agent and superintendent of terminals, he was, on July 1, 1917, employed by appellee as local agent at Camp Dodge station at a salary, to start with, of $125 per month, and continued in such employment to August 1, 1921, and he claims the reasonable value of services so rendered in the sum of $10,007.50. He further claims that, at the request of appellee's general manager, he performed the duties of local agent at Johnston station for two months, and that the reasonable value of such services was $125 per month. On this account he claims $250. He also claims that, during the time of his employment, he worked in excess of eight hours per day and on Sundays and legal holidays, and for this alleged overtime he claims $2,355.64. He admitsthat he was paid by the appellee $40 for overtime.

The answer, in addition to a general denial, admits that, during the time in question, appellant was in the employ of appellee, and alleges that he has been fully paid for all services performed by him, and pleads an accord and satisfaction based on appellant's acceptance twice a month during his employment of checks in payment of his salary.

At the close of appellant's evidence the trial court, on motion of appellee, directed a verdict in its favor. This ruling presents the principal matter for contention in this court.

In addition to the foregoing appellant's evidence tended to show, and hence, in the present situation, must be taken as establishing, the following facts:

Shortly before the government located the training camp in question appellee's general manager told appellant that, if the camp was located there, the company would need a local agent at Camp Dodge, and that he would like to have appellant for the job. On Saturday, June 30, 1917, after the camp had been located, he told appellant the salary would be $125 to start with and asked him to go out the next day and look over the situation and see what was needed. This the appellant did, and on Monday, July 2, 1917, he started to work. On the last named date appellee issued a circular, signed by its superintendent of transportation, stating that appellant had been appointed general agent at Camp Dodge, and that he would have complete charge of the terminal known as Camp Dodge district and charge of all work done in that territory, and that all men “would work under his direction relative to the handling of cars, etc.” This order came to appellant's knowledge within a few days, and he was also advised by the general manager that he was to be appointed general agent. By a like order, dated January 15, 1918, all employés were advised that:

“The management has this date requested Mr. P. H. McGuire, general agent at Camp Dodge, to assume, in addition to his former duties, the general overseeing of all the interests at Camp Dodge, including Herrold and down to and including Johnston station. Mr. A. S. Clemons, station master, will act as Mr. McGuire's assistant and will have charge of the passenger stations within the camp reservation, including Herrold, and should be consulted in all matters concerning their detailed operation.”

Appellant had numerous other assistants, but the exact number or when they were employed is not shown, save that at one time he had a cashier, chief clerk, car clerk, and three other clerks in the freight office. He had charge of all ticket offices within his territory. Appellant testified that he did part of the work himself; that it was impossible for one man to do it all. He defined the duties of a local agent as consisting of accounting for all freight received, collecting and remitting charges, looking after the office force, keeping the records of receipts and the forwarding freight cars, damages and shortages of freight, correspondence, collecting and remitting demurrage charges, making out monthly reports, abstracts, and balance sheets, and all reports that were required. The duties of a general agent, as distinguished from a local agent, he defined as looking after the company's interests as they developed, the looking after claims, such as maintenance claims and transportation claims, and arranging passenger equipment. He testified that it was necessary to watch the train service, to see that the right number of coaches were in the trains, and that, as general agent, he was over Johnston station, Camp Dodge ticket office, Arsenal ticket office, and Herrold freight and passenger stations, and that these were not duties of the local agent at Camp Dodge freight station.

The appellant made out the pay rolls for the force under him and for himself as well. The first pay roll after his employment was made out on July 15, 1917, and therein he designated himself as general agent. He continued to so designate himself in the pay rolls until his appointment as superintendent of terminals, after which he gave his title as superintendent of terminals and general agent. The salary paid him at the beginning of his employment was $125 per month, and it was increased from time to time until he was receiving $210 per month. His salary was paid twice a month by checks bearing on their face the words: “For all services rendered up to and including above date.” During a good portion of the period of his employment he was paid $25 per month in addition to his salary. These latter amounts did not appear upon the pay rolls at all and appear to have been to apply on his expenses. The pay rolls made out by appellant contained no reference to his alleged employment as local agent at Camp Dodge and no mention of overtime for him, although they showed overtime for certain employés under him.

[1] Taking up first appellant's claim to recover for alleged services as local agent at Camp Dodge and Johnston stations, we think it is entirely clear that, on the uncontroverted facts, he is not entitled to recover, and that the action of the lower court in so directing the jury was plainly right. His theory seems to be that he was orally employed as local agent at Camp Dodge and that, notwithstanding the fact that, on the day he went to work for appellee, he was appointed general agent, he was never relieved as local agent and that, while continuing to hold the position of general agent, for which he was paid the full salary contemplated by his employment, he was during all that time local agent also and entitled to a salary as such.

The general situation was doubtless without parallel. The appellee was confronted with the problem of handling the freight and passenger business incident to the hurried construction and efficient operation of a great training camp for thousands of newly enrolled soldiers. Appellant was offered the position of local agent and within two days, and on the very day he went to work, was appointed as general agent. That this was due to the quick realization of the magnitude of the task and the necessity of having one with adequate authority in charge cannot be doubted. The obvious distinction between the two positions, and the one most apparent from appellant's own description of the duties pertaining to each, is that the latter was one of greater authority and responsibility, of higher and supervisory rank over the former. The general agent was responsible for the proper performance of duties pertaining strictly to a local agent. That appellant himself, or through his assistants, performed the duties of local agent is not open to question, but that fact is far from conclusive, for as general agent it was his duty to see that they were performed. That appellant himself so considered it at the time is clear. In the first pay roll made out by him showing the salary due himself and his subordinates he described himself as general agent and drew the salary agreed upon at the time of his employment. It does not appear when he was first given assistance, and it may be that, at the beginning, the work actually performed by him personally was largely that required of a local agent. However the situation is regarded, by whichever name known, it is certain that the position originated with his appointment, and that the consequent duties began from nothing and grew in magnitude, importance, and responsibility in unprecedented fashion. The first office at Camp Dodge was in a small tent, and later, it is said by counsel, the business done amounted to millions of dollars. Large or small, it was under the direction and supervision of appellant as general agent, and that relation of necessity included the duty of seeing that work...