Raifeisen v. Young
| Decision Date | 02 June 1914 |
| Parties | C. J. RAIFEISEN, Appellant, v. W. E. YOUNG et al., Respondents |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Bollinger Circuit Court.--Hon. Peter H. Huck, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Montgomery and Montgomery for appellant.
No brief filed for respondent.
This is an action upon a bond executed by the defendant Young, as principal, and by his codefendants as sureties. Plaintiff the obligee in the bond, entered into a contract with the defendant Young, employing the latter as a salesman, to sell goods manufactured or sold by a certain company, in territory which might be assigned to said defendant from time to time. The term of hiring was for one year, with a provision that plaintiff retained the right to terminate the contract at any time whenever, in his opinion, defendant Young "did not handle the territory assigned to him to the best interest" of the manufacturing company, whose goods he was selling. Defendant Young was to be paid a certain commission upon sales made by him, it being agreed that the plaintiff would advance to him, from time to time, such necessary sums of money for travelling expenses as he might require. The bond, of even date with the contract, was conditioned that defendant Young should account for and return the samples, trunks, etc., furnished him, and repay to plaintiff, upon ceasing to act as travelling salesman under the contract, such moneys as had then been advanced to him for travelling expenses in excess of the commissions earned by him.
It appears that defendant Young began work under the contract early in November, 1910, and continued in such employment until about March 21, 1911, when he was discharged by plaintiff. During this time plaintiff had advanced his traveling expenses, which, it is claimed exceeded the amount of his commissions. And this suit was brought against said defendant and the sureties on his bond, to recover the amount thus alleged to have been advanced in excess of such commissions; the plaintiff claiming that there was a balance owing to him of $ 257.97 on account thereof.
It is unnecessary to notice the pleadings, or to set forth the details of the evidence. Upon a trial before the court and a jury there was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The only point urged here for reversal is that the verdict has no substantial evidence to support it; that the trial court therefore erred in refusing to set it aside.
But the record before us discloses that the grounds of plaintiff's motion for a new trial, filed below, are as follows:
1. The verdict of the jury is against the evidence presented at the trial.
2. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
3. The verdict is against the law as declared in the instructions given by the court.
4. The verdict of the jury should have been for plaintiff and not for the defendant.
The first ground stated in said motion, viz., that the verdict is "against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial