McInnis v. National Casualty Company
| Decision Date | 06 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | 16,791 - (150) |
| Citation | 129 N.W. 125,113 Minn. 156 |
| Parties | D. D. McINNIS v. NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Petition On Rehearing Filed January 20, 1911
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,000 in accordance with the terms of a certain contract. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and set up that if any such agreement was made by defendant, it was without consideration; set out the written agreement contained in the opinion, and alleged that defendant indorsed its approval thereon but was not a party to it, and there was no consideration for its approval. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Simpson, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,034. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Partnership -- contract not ambiguous.
Action to recover from the defendant upon a contract between the parties whereby the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff $1,000 in consideration of his retiring from a copartnership which was state manager of its casualty business. Held, construing the documentary evidence referred to in the opinion, that it was not ambiguous in its terms, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, and that the trial court did not err, either in its rulings as to the admission of evidence or in its charge to the jury.
Einar Hoidale, H. L. Hoidale, and Henry C. Walters, for appellant.
Arthur Christofferson and J. A. A. Burnquist, for respondent.
*T, C.J.
This action was brought in the district court of the county of Hennepin to recover from the defendant $1,000. The complaint alleged in effect that the defendant was a corporation, and that on April 22, 1909, the defendant entered into a contract with plaintiff to pay him $1,000 in consideration of his retiring from the agency of Barnes & McInnis, as state managers of the defendant, and that he did so retire. The answer admitted that the defendant was a corporation, denied the other allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively alleged that, if the agreement alleged in the complaint was in fact entered into, there was no consideration therefor, and, further, what the terms of the alleged agreement were, as it was informed and believed. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. The defendant appealed from an order denying its blended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The assignments of error raise the questions whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence and whether the trial court erred in its rulings as to the admission of evidence or in its charge to the jury.
There was evidence tending to show the following facts:
The plaintiff and G. W. Barnes were partners under the firm name of Barnes & McInnis, having their place of business at Minneapolis, and as such were the state managers of the defendant's casualty insurance business. The plaintiff had been, for some thirteen years prior to entering the defendant's services, engaged in casualty insurance business as an officer of a company whose business the defendant reinsured. On February 27, 1909, the parties entered into a written agreement (Exhibit C), the here material provisions of which are as follows:
"Any time on or after June 1, 1909, should either party desire to retire from the agency of Barnes & McInnis, state managers of the National Casualty Company of Detroit, such retirement shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Such retirement to be fully concurred in by the remaining party.
2. That such retirement shall be concurred in by the National Casualty Co.
3. That the agency name, Barnes & McInnis, shall remain unchanged for a period not to exceed six months from date of retirement of either party, subject, however, to change at the option of the remaining party.
4. That said retiring partner shall give at least thirty (30) days' notice of intention to retire to said remaining partner and said company.
5. That said retiring partner agrees not to engage in the business of casualty insurance within Minnesota for a period of not less than six (6) months from consummation of this agreement.
6. That said retiring partner agrees to accept from said National Casualty Co. the sum of $1,000. * * * Same to be in full settlement of all equitable claims said retiring partner may have against or hold in said agency, or the business by it controlled.
7. Said parties agree that, in event of incompatibility and disagreement that said company shall nominate which party shall retire, and that such decision by said company shall be final.
8. Said parties agree that should either party to said agency die during the pendency of this agreement, that the equitable value of the interest of said deceased shall be $1,000, payable as hereinbefore stated, and said payments shall constitute full settlement of all claims or interest in or against said agency or the National Casualty Co."
This agreement was signed by each of the partners. Then followed immediately below their signatures this provision, "Approved and accepted this 27th day of February, 1909," which was signed by the vice president and manager of agencies for the defendant, whose authority to represent the defendant was conceded. [1]
On April 15, 1909, the vice president of the defendant saw the plaintiff, and told him the company did not want Barnes to resign from the agency, and wanted him to stay, and that, in view of the fact that he and the plaintiff did not get on well together, and that the plaintiff was going to leave the service June 1 he would like to have him leave at once. The plaintiff replied that the company could have his resignation if it would take care of him and his contract. Thereupon, and on April 17, he wrote a letter (Exhibit A) which was to the effect following:
To continue reading
Request your trial