Rathenberger v. Jacob

Citation167 Wis. 273,167 N.W. 271
PartiesRATHENBERGER v. JACOB.
Decision Date03 April 1918
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marathon County; A. H. Reid, Judge.

Action by Bert Rathenberger against T. H. Jacob, doing business as Marathon Motorcar Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was a salesman in the employ of defendant who had a contract with the Ford Motor Company for an agency in this state. Defendant's contract expired August 1, 1915. During June and July of that year, and while still in defendant's employ as such salesman, the plaintiff and a third person circulated and obtained signatures to a petition, recommending plaintiff and such other person to the Ford Motor Company for appointment to the agency then held by the defendant for the new term commencing at the expiration of defendant's then existing contract. The efforts of plaintiff were unsuccessful in that regard, and defendant obtained a renewal on his contract. Defendant did not know of such efforts by the plaintiff until after August 1st, and then refused to pay a balance claimed by plaintiff under the contract between them, on the ground that there had been a breach of duty by plaintiff towards the defendant in so soliciting such new contract for himself while in defendant's employ. The action was tried without a jury, and the court found that plaintiff's efforts to secure the agency did not constitute a breach of his contract with defendant, and did not work a forfeiture of the amount claimed by him, and granted him judgment for the amount claimed. From this judgment defendant appealed.Kreutzer, Bird, Okoneski & Puchner, of Wausau, for appellant.

E. A. Morse, of Antigo, for respondent.

ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1][2] Justice ROSENBERRY did not participate in this case. The CHIEF JUSTICE and Justices VINJE and OWEN are of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed; Justices SIEBECKER, KERWIN, and the writer that it should be affirmed. It follows under the rule that the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. In re Estate of Benjamin F. Carter, 167 Wis. 89, 166 N. W. 657.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Smith v. Kleynerman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • March 21, 2017
    ...365, 157 N.W. 1103 (1916) (on appeal).11. In re Carter's Estate , 167 Wis. 89, 166 N.W. 657 (1918) (on appeal).12. Rathenberger v. Jacob , 167 Wis. 273, 167 N.W. 271 (1918) (on appeal).13. Johnston v. City of West Allis , 173 Wis. 463, 180 N.W. 121 (1920) (on appeal).14. Racine Auto Tire Co......
  • McCormick v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 5, 1918

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