Nelson v. La Crosse Trailer Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1949 |
| Citation | 254 Wis. 414,37 N.W.2d 63 |
| Parties | NELSON v. LA CROSSE TRAILER CORPORATION. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for La Crosse County; R. S. Cowie, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action begun July 22, 1948, by Jack M. Nelson against the La Crosse Trailer Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, to recover damages for breach of a contract of employment. From an order of October 18, 1948, overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint, defendant appeals.
Plaintiff was formerly employed as chief engineer for the defendant which manufactured industrial trailers. About June 3, 1948, plaintiff was discharged from his employment. On July 22, 1948, he began an action against defendant for breach of his contract of employment by service of his summons and complaint on defendant. After granting several motions by the defendant for the plaintiff to make his complaint more definite and certain, the court denied a motion of September 30, 1948, to that effect and ordered the defendant to answer within five days. Defendant then demurred to the complaint on the ground that it was insufficient to state a cause of action. The court on October 18, 1948, overruled the defendant's demurrer with leave to answer within five days. The defendant appeals.
On the appeal the plaintiff contends that defendant's appeal is frivolous and for the sole purpose of delay and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to double costs under sec. 251.23(3), Stats.
Lees & Bunge, of La Crosse, for appellant.
V. Downing Edwards, of La Crosse, for respondent.
The complaint is an attempt to state some cause of action. Plaintiff is seeking to recover three items: (1) salary for the month of June, 1948; (2) vacation pay; (3) bonus. He is claiming his right to recover on the basis of an oral contract for employment as a design engineer and chief engineer with defendant. In his attempt to set out a contract he alleges that he had conferences with certain officers of the defendant during the month of October, 1944, and that
The complaint then states that the plaintiff began his services on November 1, 1944.
It further alleges ‘That on or about the 30th day of December, 1945, the defendant * * * altered and modified the original agreement of employment between the defendant and the plaintiff by promoting the plaintiff to the position of chief engineer, which was considered as a key position in the defendant's business.’ Then follows another conclusion that: This bonus payment according to the statements in the complaint was based on the defendant's net profits before federal and state income taxes for the twelve-month period ending June 30th of each year.
Paragraph XV alleges:
The complaint may be as well drawn as it can be, but it is poorly drawn. If plaintiff does have a cause of action, if he does have a binding contract with the defendant, the allegations in the complaint do an excellent job of obscuring it. The allegations are vague, general, contradictory, and certainly border too closely on being conclusions. Text writers and opinions in cases are to the effect that facts constituting the cause of action must be stated in the complaint. The issue then becomes definitely outlined by the essential facts asserted by the plaintiff and controverted by defendant. They must be of such a nature that an affirmative decision is essential to the cause of action, while a negative answer defeats a recovery. The ‘theory of pleading contemplates and makes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wisconsin Tel. Co.
...644, (238 N.W.2d 738); Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, 43 Wis.2d 445, 168 N.W.2d 559 (1969); Nelson v. La Crosse Trailer Corp., 254 Wis. 414, 37 N.W.2d 63 (1949).' "In State v. Ross, 73 Wis.2d 1, 3, 4, 242 N.W.2d 210, 211 (1976), we " 'The rules relating to review of orders o......
-
Hartridge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Farms, supra, 644; Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, 43 Wis.2d 445, 168 N.W.2d 559 (1969); Nelson v. La Crosse Trailer Corp., 254 Wis. 414, 37 N.W.2d 63 (1949)." In State v. Ross, 73 Wis.2d 1, 3, 4, 242 N.W.2d 210, 211 (1976), we "The rules relating to review of orders overruli......
-
Schneider Fuel & Supply Co. v. Thomas H. Bentley & Son, Inc.
...Wis.2d 78, 119 N.W.2d 471; D'Angelo v. Cornell Paper-board Products Co. (1963), 19 Wis.2d 390, 120 N.W.2d 70; Nelson v. La Crosse Trailer Corp. (1949), 254 Wis. 414, 37 N.W.2d 63.3 Alsteen v. Gehl (1963), 21 Wis.2d 349, 124 N.W.2d 312; Lee v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co. (1963), 20 Wis.2d 333, 1......
-
International Foundation of Emp. Benefit Plans, Inc. v. City of Brookfield, 75--241
...644, 238 N.W.2d 738; Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, 43 Wis.2d 445, 168 N.W.2d 559 (1969); Nelson v. LaCrosse Trailer Corp., 254 Wis. 414, 37 N.W.2d 63 (1949). The rules relating to review of orders overruling demurrers were most recently stated by this court in State v. Ross......