Peniston v. John Y. Huber Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1900
• Docket Number: 58
• Parties: Peniston v. John Y. Huber Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

46 A. 934

Peniston v. John Y. Huber Company

196 Pa. 580

No. 58

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 11, 1900

Argued March 26, 1900

Appeal, No. 58, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1892, No. 590, on verdict for plaintiff in case of W.W. Peniston v. John Y. Huber Company. Reversed.

Assumpsit on a contract of employment. Before PENNYPACKER, P.J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged in part at follows:

[It is the duty of an employee to give obedience to reasonable directions given him by the employer about the performance of his duties.] [I think we get, perhaps, the clearest idea of what was the difficulty between these parties, from a portion of the testimony of the plaintiff himself. He tells us "Mr. Huber wanted me to change from the second story of the building at Eleventh and Ridge avenue and come down to the first floor of the main building, and have simply that office, and I told him no; that we ought to have the agents' department where it was, and that the small office on the ground floor, the rent did not amount to anything; it wasn't more than, probably eight by ten feet;" and that was what brought matters to a crisis.

He further testified when he was asked:

"Q. Did he tell you to go down to the first floor? A. Yes, sir. Q. He directed you to do it, did he? A. Yes, sir; and I declined. Q. You refused? A. Ideclined, because he had made a previous arrangement to have that second floor, and to have that department there, and I felt I had a partner's interest in it, instead of a position as a clerk."

I think that gives us a clue to the difficulty. The plaintiff was insisting that under this agreement his rights were those of a partner, and that, therefore, he was entitled to determine questions of that character, and the employer took the other view, that he was called upon to decide questions of location and questions of the general conduct and management of that business, and that this was a contract of employment, and not one of partnership. I have instructed you that in his view of it, the employer was in the right, and that the employee was in the wrong. This was a contract of employment.

Then the question arises as to whether or not that was a reasonable direction to give to an employee. If you look further in this case you can see many reasons why it may have been important that the work should be done in the room where the work was commenced on the first floor. This, you remember, was only one portion of the business. It may well have been in the conduct of his business that the employer needed that room for some other purpose. You have had it testified before you that a few months later than this occurrence the weight of the material in the upper floors of the building broke through the floors, and the whole thing was precipitated below. This is a matter which a man knowing the general needs of the business might well take into consideration.

You have also heard that the president of the company was a man who was in ill health, and that it was difficult for him to mount the stairways. He may well have considered that it was important for him to have the business conducted where it would be convenient for him to supervise it. But without going into any conjectures about it, if it was a reasonable order which the employer gave then it would be the duty of the employee to obey it; if he did not, and he refused, he could well be discharged.]

I take it, if you had a kitchen girl, and she insisted upon doing her cooking in the parlor because there happened to be more room in the parlor, you would feel that she might be properly discharged from that employment.

You may, for the purposes of this case, consider the president of the company as acting for the employer. There is no evidence to show us what was the authority conferred upon the president, but, ordinarily, he is the executive officer of a corporation, and that was an inquiry which the employee was not called upon to make. The directions of the president were the directions of the defendant. [It appears that the employer, Mr. Huber, asked the plaintiff here for the surrender of the written contracts which had been made with the customers. Was that a reasonable demand for him to make? You will remember that the large amount of capital necessary for the conduct of this business was supplied not by the plaintiff, but by the defendant, and the contracts were made with the defendant, and the funds were to come from him.

It appears that the plaintiff had been carrying those contracts around in his pocket. It does not need to look very far into it, it seems to me, to say that that was not a very safe nor a very desirable place to have the contracts. It is a question for you as to whether or not a demand for those papers, which were right at the foundation of the business was a reasonable demand.]

If the plaintiff was not discharged, or if he was properly discharged, under the terms of the contract, which provides that there should be an ascertainment of the profits at the end of every three months and a payment to the plaintiff of his proportion of them, he would be entitled, if you are able to ascertain from this testimony, as to what his proportion of the profits was for the first three months, because three months had passed. To that sum he would be entitled, less the $20.00 a week which, it is conceded, had been paid to him.

If he was discharged without sufficient ground -- if he was improperly discharged by his employer -- then he would be entitled to receive what would compensate him for the loss he would have because of the failure to carry out the terms of the contract. At the expiration of the two years, in addition to one third of the net profits, he was to have one third of the value of the plates, copyrights, and stock. He has testified to you that those plates were, in his judgment, at the time of the alleged breach, worth about $20,000. He tells you there was stock there worth from $1,000 to $2,000, and he further testifies to you that upon one of these books "The Prince of Peace," if I remember correctly there had been sales amounting to 55,000 copies, and he estimates the profits upon each of those copies at fifty cents. If I have made that calculation correctly, that would amount to $27,500, and taking his view of it, if you find the facts his way and should believe the...