Overton v. Vita-Food Corp., VITA-FOOD

Citation94 Cal.App.2d 367,210 P.2d 757
Decision Date31 October 1949
Docket NumberVITA-FOOD
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesOVERTON v.CORPORATION et al. Civ. 16951.

Charles I. Schottland, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Neil G. Locke, Beverly Hills, for respondent.

VALLEE, Justice.

Appeal by defendant, The Vita-Food Corporation, from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover compensation for services rendered under the terms of a written contract. The action was tried by the court without a jury.

On February 5, 1942, appellant and respondent entered into a written contract by which appellant employed respondent to serve as its president from January 1, 1942, to December 31, 1946. The contract provided that it was understood that respondent would be engaged primarily in the practice of law but that he should devote as much time as might be necessary or proper in the interests of the corporation and perform all duties and services as the Managing Director or the Board of Directors might direct from time to time and that he should receive as compensation for his services a salary of $250 a month. It contained the following proviso: 'provided, however, that the said employment shall be totally suspended and no services shall be rendered by or required of Overton and the salary of Overton shall not accrue, become owing or due for the period or periods during which any or all of the following occur: The plant or plants of the Corporation are out of production from causes incident to or resulting from the present and prospective emergent conditions, or other causes beyond the reasonable control of the Corporation, such as, but without limitation to, transportation delays or interruptions, strikes, and acts of God. The plant or plants of the Corporation shall be deemed out of production during any month if the production in such month does not exceed forty per cent (40%) of one-third ( 1/3) of the actual production during the last three (3) months of 1941; laboratory and research work are not and shall not be considered as contributing to or being a part of production.'

The complaint alleged the contract; that respondent performed the services required by the contract to the end of 1946; that he had not been paid for 1945 or 1946, except $500 paid in 1946, and that $5500 was unpaid. The answer alleged that the plants of appellant were out of production within the meaning of the contract in 1945 and 1946, and that, therefore, no salary was due respondent.

The court found the allegations of the complaint true except it found that $125 was paid in 1945. It also found: 1. 'That at no time during the term of such written agreement was or were any plant or plants of Vita-Food 'out of production' within the meaning or effect of said written agreement; nor at any time during such term was any plant or plants of Vita-Food 'out of production' by reason of 'emergent conditions', or otherwise, within the meaning or effect of said written agreement (Clause 2).' 2. 'That on or about November 30, 1942, Vita-Food sold to another entity a certain trade-mark, and right to manufacture products offered to the market under such trade-mark, for a consideration of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000.00) Dollars; that all of such consideration has been paid; that such sale was not a forced or involuntary sale; that by so selling Vita-Food voluntarily placed it out of its power to meet the provisions of the so-called 'production clause' (Clause 2) set forth in said written agreement; and that at all times during the years 1945 and 1946 Vita-Food was financially able to pay plaintiff the salary or compensation agreed to be paid him under said written agreement.' 3. '* * * that Vita-Food requested of, and accepted from, plaintiff the services rendered by plaintiff during such years 1945 and 1946, and accepted the benefits thereof; and that Vita-Food is estopped and precluded, by and as a result of its conduct, from denying or refusing to plaintiff payments of the salary or compensation otherwise due to him under the terms of said written agreement.' Judgment was rendered for respondent in the sum of $5375, with interest.

Appellant concedes the making of the contract, the payments made in 1945 and 1946, and nonpayment of the balance for those years. It claims that the other findings are entirely unsupported by the evidence.

Andre Gide once observed: 'Everything has been said already; but as no one listens, we must always begin again.' With rhythmic regularity it is necessary for us to say that where the findings are attacked for insufficiency of the evidence, our power begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence to support them; that we have no power to judge of the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. No one seems to listen. We are satisfied from an examination of the voluminous transcript that the findings are amply supported by the evidence.

Appellant first says that we are not bound by the trial court's construction of the contract and are called upon to determine its meaning as a matter of law. Counsel cite Moore v. Wood, 26 Cal.2d 621, 630, 160 P.2d 772; In re Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 352, 131 P.2d 825, and Texas Company v. Todd, 19 Cal.App.2d 174, 185, 64 P.2d 1180. This rule applies only where the trial court's decision was based solely on the terms of the written instrument. Union Nat. Bank of Pasadena v. Hunter, 93 Cal.App.2d 669, 209 P.2d 621. This was the situation in the cases cited by counsel. The rule is otherwise where parol evidence is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
212 cases
  • San Clemente Ranch, Ltd. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 27 Junio 1980
    ...subd. (d).) 28 See Carroll v. Civil Service Commission (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 561, 567, 107 Cal.Rptr. 557; Overton v. Vita-Food Corp. (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 371, 210 P.2d 757; Mastro Plastics v. N. L. R. B. (1956) 350 U.S. 270, 287, 76 S.Ct. 349, 360, 100 L.Ed. 309; N. L. R. B. v. Guernsey......
  • Maggio, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 15 Febrero 1991
    ...inferences which may be drawn from that evidence; those are the responsibilities of the trial court. (Overton v. Vita-Food Corp. (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 370, 210 P.2d 757, disapproved on other grounds in Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 44 Cal.Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 8......
  • Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 10 Junio 1964
    ...witnesses, or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom,' (Overton v. Vita-Food Corp., 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 370, 210 [227 Cal.App.2d 697] P.2d 757, 759) because these matters rest within the province of the trier of fact. (Code Civ.Proc. ......
  • People By and Through Dept. of Public Works v. Glen Arms Estate, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Noviembre 1964
    ...evidence is, like the trial court's determination of any other factual issue, conclusive on appeal. (See Overton v. Vita-Food Corp. (1949), 94 Cal.App.2d 367, 370, 210 P.2d 757.) We have at the beginning of this opinion set forth in detail the evidence received by the trial court relevant t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT