Muir v. Morris
Decision Date | 16 May 1916 |
Citation | 157 P. 785,80 Or. 378 |
Parties | MUIR v. MORRIS ET AL. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
On petition for rehearing. Former opinion affirmed, and petition denied.
For former opinion, see 154 P. 117.
In response to an urgent petition for a rehearing the entire record has again been examined. Morris & Whitehead, Bankers was a corporation which owned and had control of several other corporations, including the Oregon General Electric Company, which was incorporated on December 6, 1901, with a capital stock of $2,000,000 divided into 20,000 shares. W. T Muir and three others each subscribed for one share of the stock of the Oregon General Electric Company, and the balance of the stock was subscribed by Fred S. Morris, who held the stock, however, as the property of Morris & Whitehead Bankers. On June 7, 1902, the name of the Oregon General Electric Company was changed to the Oregon Water Power & Railway Company. On November 24, 1902, Julius Christensen and the defendants James H. Morris and Fred S. Morris formed a partnership under the name of Morris Bros. & Christensen, and succeeded to all the assets and business of Morris & Whitehead, Bankers. The capital stock of the Oregon Water Power & Railway Company was transferred from the corporation of Morris & Whitehead, Bankers, to the partnership of Morris Bros. & Christensen, the partnership agreement making James H. Morris and Fred S. Morris each the owner of two-fifths and Julius Christensen the owner of one-fifth of the stock so transferred. In June, 1905, the partnership of Morris Bros. & Christensen was dissolved, and about the same time James H. Morris and Fred S. Morris formed a partnership under the name of Morris Bros. When the firm of Morris Bros. & Christensen was dissolved, all the assets, including stock in the Oregon Water Power & Railway Company, which were apportioned to James H. Morris and Fred S. Morris, were taken over by the partnership of Morris Bros. In April, 1906, Morris Bros. sold all their stock in the Oregon Water Power & Railway Company for $65 per share.
W. T. Muir, an attorney, who occupied a high position in the profession, entered the service of Morris & Whitehead Bankers, on February 15, 1901, and his employment was continued by its successors in interest until April, 1906, when Morris Bros. sold all their Oregon Water Power & Railway Company stock. Mr. Muir received an agreed salary of $200 per month until April, 1902; pursuant to an agreement made in advance the amount was $275 per month from April, 1902, to December 31, 1902; during 1903 the agreed salary was $400 per month; on January 1, 1904, the salary was arbitrarily reduced by the employer to $275 per month, and while Mr. Muir did not formally agree to the reduction, he continued to receive $275 per month without objection during the remaining period of his service.
It is then alleged that the partnership of Morris Bros. & Christensen assumed and agreed to pay all the liabilities of the corporation called Morris & Whitehead, Bankers, and that the partnership agreed that W. T. Muir was inadequately paid, and that if he would devote his best energies to the properties of his employers he would receive as additional compensation "an interest in the property, shares of stock, profits, and business" of the corporations operated by Morris Bros. & Christensen, the extent of such additional compensation to be determined afterwards.
The complaint concludes by averring that Morris Bros. sold the capital stock of the Oregon Water Power & Railway Company including the 1,000 shares which should have been delivered to W. T. Muir for $65 per share, on account of which it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Biersdorf v. Putnam et al.
...is not admissible to show that other covenants or agreements are to be performed. Muir v. Morris, 80 Or. 378, 392, 402, 154 P. 117, 157 P. 785; Coker & Bellamy v. Richey, 104 Or. 14, 202 P. 551, 204 P. 945, 204 P. 947. The instrument signed by plaintiff and defendants contained the recital ......