Newhall v. Journal Printing Company
| Decision Date | 03 July 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,602 - (135) |
| Parties | NORMAN L. NEWHALL and Another v. JOURNAL PRINTING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $ 1,200 for the breach of a contract. The case was tried before Simpson, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 928.40. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied and that for a new trial was granted unless plaintiff would remit the portion of the verdict above $ 728. Pursuant to the order the overplus was remitted, and from the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendant appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.
Contract of Employment.
A contract for employment is not lacking in mutuality because the party employed does not bind himself to continue in the employment for a definite period.
Contract of Agency.
A contract of agency, which leaves the agent free to terminate his relations with the principal on reasonable or specified notice, must be construed to confer the same right upon the principal, unless provisions to the contrary are stipulated.
Damages for Breach.
Damages for the breach of such an agency contract by improper termination by the principal, if a corporation, do not necessarily extend beyond the period for which it was organized. There is no presumption of law that such a corporation will prolong its artificial existence by availing itself of statutory provisions for renewal of its franchise.
Extent of Recovery.
It is here held that defendant newspaper was not, as a matter of law, justified in terminating a contract with a carrier; that its breach of that contract did not entitle the plaintiff to recover damages for prospective profits for a longer time than during the remainder of the period for which the company was incorporated; that plaintiff was not entitled, under his complaint for a breach of a contract for daily delivery ("Sundays excepted"), to recover damages for breach of a contract to sell and deliver the Sunday edition subsequently issued.
Cohen Atwater & Shaw, for appellant.
Norton M. Cross, for respondent.
Plaintiff sought to recover damages for the breach of a contract made by the defendant with plaintiff's assignor for the delivery of newspapers and for collection of the price thereof. The contract in question set forth that for a consideration of $ 135, paid by plaintiff's assignor to the defendant, the defendant gave to such assignor, and therefore to defendant, the exclusive right to sell defendant's publication within certain specified territory under the terms and conditions stated in the contract. The specification of the time of the duration of the contract was as follows:
"Either party to this contract may at any time terminate said contract upon thirty days' written notice to the other party, and upon the expiration of thirty days from the date of the service of said notice all the rights of said second party under said contract shall cease, except the right of reimbursement as hereinafter provided; provided, however, that said first party shall not terminate this contract, except for the dishonesty, incompetence, negligence, inattention, or irresponsibility of said second party."
The jury returned a verdict of $ 928.40. A motion for a new trial was granted, unless plaintiff would remit all of the verdict above $ 728, in which event the court ordered that the verdict should stand in all respects as if originally rendered for $ 728. Plaintiff duly remitted in accordance with the order. This appeal was taken from that order.
One of the essential questions in this case is whether the contract was terminable by defendant, with or without cause, on thirty days' notice. Defendant contends that where a contract for the employment of a person in a particular business as long as the latter may elect to serve has been broken by the employer, the employee, having never fixed by his election the period of service, cannot recover substantial damages for the breach, inasmuch as the obligation violated is too uncertain. Bolles v. Sachs, 37 Minn. 315, 33 N.W. 862. Cf. McMullan v. Dickinson Co., 63 Minn. 405, 65 N.W. 661, 663. And see St. Louis v. Mathews, 64 Ark. 398, 42 S.W. 902, 39 L.R.A. 467. It is, however, well settled that a contract for employment is not lacking in...
To continue reading
Request your trial