McPartland v. Beaumart, Inc.

• Citation: 124 Conn. 539,200 A. 1018
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 12 July 1938
• Parties: McPARTLAND v. BEAUMART, Inc.

200 A. 1018
124 Conn. 539

McPARTLAND
v.
BEAUMART, Inc.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 12, 1938.

200 A. 1018

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Raymond J. Declin, Judge.

Action by Thomas A. McPartland against Beaumart, Inc., for breach of employment contract. The action was tried to court. A judgment was entered for plaintiff, the court denied a motion to reopen the judgment, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

Zalmon S. Hirsch, of Bridgeport, for appellant. William J. Carrig, of New Haven, for appellee.

AVERY, Judge.

&gt

The plaintiff brought this action alleging that he was employed by the defendant as a sales manager for a period of six months beginning November 30th, 1936, at an agreed salary, that he entered upon the employment and was wrongfully discharged. After trial the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover and the defendant has appealed. The court found the facts as follows: The plaintiff for four years has been a salesman of liquors and spirits throughout Connecticut. The defendant, a domestic corporation, having its principal place of business at Bridgeport, is engaged in the business of rectifying and selling liquors and spirits and employs a number of salesmen. On November 25th, 1936, the plaintiff and the manager of the defendant company, met at the office of the company pursuant to appointment and there entered into an agreement whereby the defendant employed the plaintiff as sales manager, with certain duties which were then agreed upon, for six months commencing November 30th, 1936, and agreed to pay him a salary of $50 per week during this period. On November 25th, 1936, the defendant entered upon the performance of his duties and duly performed the same as agreed upon; but on December 5th, 1936, he was notified by an officer of the defendant that there was no room for another salesman and tendered a check for $50, which he refused to accept. During the remainder of the six months he diligently sought other employment but was able to earn only $291 and by reason of his discharge sustained damages of $1,009.

The defendant has asked various additions to and corrections of the finding for the purpose of showing that no such contract was made. Examination of the evidence certified, however, shows that the matter in dispute between the parties at the trial was whether or not such an agreement had been made, and as there...