Orr v. E. M. Ward.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 5222,73 Ill. 318 |
| Parties | SAMUEL C. ORRv.E. M. WARD. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. FULLER & SMITH, for the appellant.
Mr. H. F. WHITE, and Mr. ABNER SMITH, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:
The decision in this case depends mainly upon the construction that shall be given to the contract declared on. It is, in substance, as follows: In consideration of the sum of $2100 for the year 1873, and $2400 for the year 1874, to be paid in semi-monthly or monthly installments, appellee agreed to devote his whole time and attention solely to the interests of the firm of which it is alleged appellant was a member. By the second paragraph it is provided, appellee shall be allowed a commission on all sales in excess of $35,000, after deducting, from the aggregate sales made by him for the firm, the amount of goods returned, claims for deductions and shortages.
Under this agreement, appellee entered into the service of appellant's firm on the first day of January, 1873, as a traveling salesman, and continued in their employment up to the 11th day of June, 1873, for which service he was fully paid, under the provisions of the contract. At the latter date the firm became bankrupt, a provisional receiver was appointed to take charge of their stock, and appellee was discharged from further service, either by the assignee in charge or by the bankrupts themselves.
This action is in assumpsit, and is to recover damages for not continuing appellee in the service of the firm. But one breach is assigned in the special count in the declaration, and that is for being kept out of employment for a period of three months next following the date of appellee's discharge.
A complete answer to the breach assigned is, the contract contains no undertaking on the part of Cleveland, Johnson & Company to retain or continue appellee in the service of the firm for any definite period. We are to judge of the contract by what it contains. Having reduced it to writing, we must presume the parties have embodied in it their entire agreement. It contains no stipulation the firm will retain appellee for two years, or any other fixed period. Their undertaking is to pay him at a certain rate of compensation, if he shall discharge the duties assumed by him to be performed. No doubt it is true each party contracted on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Motor Products Corp.
...... [9 Ill.App.2d 74] Orr v. Ward, 73 Ill. 318, involved an employment contract which was indefinite with respect to the period of employment. The contract provided that plaintiff was to devote his whole time and attention solely to the interests of the employer and that he would be paid $2,100 for the year 1873 and $2,400 for the ......
-
Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp., 266.
......Williston on Sales, vol. 1, § 130; River Spinning Co. v. Atlantic Mills (C. C. R. I.) 155 F. 466, 471; McKee v. Ward, 289 Pa. 414, 137 A. 599, 600; Herring Motor Co. v. Aetna Trust & Sav. Co., 87 Ind. App. 83, 154 N. E. 29, 32; Sumner K. Prescott Co. v. Franklin Tool Works, 117 Wash. 283, 201 P. 308, 310; Stewart v. Henningsen Produce Co., 88 Kan. 521, 129 P. 181, 183, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 111, Ann. Cas. 1914B, ......
-
Pokora v. Warehouse Direct, Inc., No. 2-00-0458
...an employment arrangement for a specified period of time. Defendant claims that an opposite result is dictated by Orr v. Ward, 73 Ill. 318 (1874), and Jago, 245 Ill.App.3d 876, 185 Ill.Dec. 785, 615 N.E.2d 80. However, a review of those two cases discloses that defendant is In Orr, the defe......
-
Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co.
...... Martin v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 117, 42 N.E. 416; Pinckney v. Talmage, 31 S.C. 364, 10 S.E. 1083;. Prentiss v. Ledyard, 28 Wis. 131; Haney v. Caldwell, 35 Ark. 156;. [200 Mass. 5] . Parlett v. Guggenheimer, 67 Md. 554, 10 A. 81, 1 Am. St. Rep. 416; Orr v. Ward, 73 Ill. 318; The. Pokanoket, 156 F. 241, 84 C. C. A. 49), the weight of. authority is that this circumstance alone, in the absence of. any other consideration impairing its weight, will sustain a. finding that there was a hiring for that period. Emmens. v. Ederton, 4 H. L. C. 640; Buckingham ......