Miller v. Jones
| Citation | 178 Iowa 168,159 N.W. 671 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 30891.,30891. |
| Parties | MILLER v. JONES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court of Perry; W. W. Cardell, Judge.
Action to recover damages for defendant's wrongful discharge of plaintiff from his (defendant's) employ. The defendant admitted the discharge, but pleaded that such discharge was for due cause. Upon the issues joined the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.S. Trevarthen, of Perry, and H. G. Giddings, of Mitchell, S. D., for appellant.
Dugan & Dugan, of Perry, for appellee.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant as assistant manager of what was known as the Jones Cement Works for the term of one year from and after April 1, 1913, at the rate of $100 per month for the first nine months and $33.33 1/3 for the remainder of the year, payable at the end of each month. Plaintiff entered upon his employment, and on July 18, 1913, defendant discharged him. Plaintiff claims that the discharge was without cause, and he seeks in this action to recover the agreed compensation for the full term, less what he was able to earn during the period for which he was employed. Defendant had purchased the cement plant at a receiver's sale, growing out of an action in which plaintiff herein was plaintiff and one Van Patten was defendant. It seems that the two men at one time owned the plant which finally came into defendant's possession. During plaintiff's employment he allowed Van Patten to take away some posts which defendant claimed he had not purchased. Plaintiff was also absent, so it is claimed, from the plant several days at a time without defendant's consent. On June 19, 1913, plaintiff wrote defendant the following letter:
“Perry, Iowa, June 19, 1913.
Mr. C. Durant Jones, Perry, Iowa
Dear Sir:
hereby order that you are not to pay any more money to H. M. Shively, receiver, or to the superior court for the purchase of the cement plant of Miller & Van Patten, unless you are willing to lose all you pay for said property, as we will be there to object to said sale, as said sale was made through fraud.
[Signed] R. W. Miller,
Member of Said Firm.”
Plaintiff also stopped some other employés from hauling sand to the plant without the knowledge or consent of the defendant. These things, testified to by defendant and corroborated to some extent by others, were the reasons for plaintiff's discharge. Plaintiff denied being absent from the plant save with defendant's knowledge and consent; said he knew nothing of Van Patten's taking the cedar posts, although he affirmed that these posts had been sold to one Fife before defendant, Jones, bought the plant, and while admitting that he wrote the letter to Jones before quoted, said that he did it to protect his, Jones', interest, because Van Patten told him he was going to try to have the sale to him, Jones, set aside for fraud, and to save him, Jones, from paying the balance of the purchase price. He also testified that the reasonJones gave him for discharging him was that he, plaintiff, gave testimony damaging to him, Jones, in a suit by Van Patten to set aside the sale of the plant. Plaintiff also denied having directed men hauling sand to quit because no more cement blocks were to be made. Upon the issues joined the case was submitted on this testimony, plus some evidence tending to corroborate defendant with the result heretofore stated.
[1] II. After plaintiff had testified that he had only been able to get short jobs of work during the year for which he was employed, he was asked on cross-examination if he did not immediately thereafter find employment, but was not permitted to answer. We think the question should have been answered, subject, of course, to explanation by plaintiff.
[2] One Riddle was produced as a witness for defendant and asked this question, to which he made the response as shown:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Thomas Truck & Caster Co., 2--56622
...hostile to his or her master's interests. See LaFontaine v. Developers & Builders, Inc., supra, 156 N.W.2d at 658; Miller v. Jones, 178 Iowa 168, 172, 159 N.W. 671, 672 (1916). In the sale-related covenant not to compete cases we do not apply a 'strict construction' as appellee asserts, but......
-
Green Bay Fish Co. v. Jorgensen
...96 Am. St. Rep. 948;Saranac & L. R. S. Co. v. Arnold, 167 N. Y. 368, 60 N. E. 647;Smith v. Baker, 101 Mich. 158, 59 N. W. 394;Miller v. Jones (Iowa) 159 N. W. 671. It requires no lengthy dissertation to demonstrate as a legal and ethical proposition that where, as here, upon the undisputed ......
- Miller v. Jones