Porshin v. Snider

Decision Date03 December 1965
Citation349 Mass. 653,212 N.E.2d 216
PartiesJohn PORSHIN v. Hyman SNIDER et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Joseph B. Abrams, Boston (Robert T. Abrams and Albert M. Friedman, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.

Lawrence H. Norris, Boston (Monroe L. Inker, Boston, with him), for defendants.

Before SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.

SPALDING, Justice.

This is an action of contract in two counts. One is against the Universal Shoe Corporation (Universal); the other is against Hyman Snider individually.

The evidence most favorable to the plaintiff is as follows. In April, 1945, Snider 'negotiated with the plaintiff * * * to come to work in Sanford, Maine * * * [for Universal] at * * * ($125.00) per week, plus board and room valued at * * * ($30.00) per week.' At this time the plaintiff was employed as a stitching room foreman in a shoe factory in Haverhill at $100 per week. The plaintiff had been in the shoe busines since 1905 and was 'interested in his future security.' Snider told the plaintiff 'he would have a permanent job with [Universal] 'as long as it was in business' and if the * * * [plaintiff] 'wouldn't be able to work * * * [Snider] would take care of * * * [him]' * * *. 'You got security as long as the factory exists, you will work with me.'' Relying on this arrangement, the plaintiff gave up his job in Haverhill and worked with Universal in Sanford, Maine, for thirteen years. Snider was general manager of Universal at the time of the hiring 'with authority to hire and fire.' He had been general manager for over twenty years and continued as such throughout the period of the plaintiff's employment. In 1957 the plaintiff had a stroke but came back to work after seven weeks. In 1958 Snider offered the plaintiff $600 if he would resign from his job but the plaintiff refused. On the following day 'Snider fired him.' Motions for directed verdicts presented by the defendants were allowed by the judge subject to the plaintiff's exceptions.

1. Apart from the question of Snider's authority, we assume that a contract of this sort would be enforceable to the extent indicated in Carnig v. Carr, 167 Mass. 544, 46 N.E. 117, 35 L.R.A. 512. However, no evidence was offered which could support a finding of either express or implied authority in Snider to bind the corporation by this type of contract. The mere fact that he was general manager of Universal, with authority to hire and fire, cannot be said to clothe him with ostensible authority to make a contract for permanent employment. Braden v. Trustees of Phillips Academy, 321 Mass. 53, 71 N.E.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 8 Enero 1998
    ...person making or purporting to make a contract for a disclosed principal does not become a party to the contract." Porshin v. Snider, 349 Mass. 653, 212 N.E.2d 216, 217 (1965) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).6 MSL does not allege that this postponement constituted an actiona......
  • Clark v. Rowe
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 6 Noviembre 1998
    ...detrimental reliance. See Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman Co., 376 Mass. 757, 761, 384 N.E.2d 176 (1978); Porshin v. Snider, 349 Mass. 653, 655, 212 N.E.2d 216 (1965). As to the negligence count, Potter, as the lender's agent, owed no duty of care to the plaintiff borrower. See Sha......
  • Frankina v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 1 Septiembre 1992
    ...763 (two company officials did not have apparent authority to guarantee plaintiff job until retirement age); Porshin v. Snider, 349 Mass. 653, 654-55, 212 N.E.2d 216 (1965) (general manager of a company did not have apparent authority to make a lifetime contract on behalf of the company); B......
  • Kleinerman v. Morse
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 26 Enero 1989
    ...of disclosed principals and is not personally liable. See Cass v. Lord, 236 Mass. 430, 432, 128 N.E. 716 (1920); Porshin v. Snider, 349 Mass. 653, 655, 212 N.E.2d 216 (1965); Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co., 385 Mass. 300, 305 n. 5, 431 N.E.2d 908 (1982). Whatever the application of the agent for......
  • 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