Reid v. Bradstreet Co., 69.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1931
• Docket Number: No. 69.,69.
• Citation: 239 N.W. 509,256 Mich. 282
• Parties: REID v. BRADSTREET CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

256 Mich. 282

239 N.W. 509

REID

v.BRADSTREET CO.

No. 69.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 8, 1931.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Lester S. Moll, Judge.

Suit by George F. W. Reid against the Bradstreet Company. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, of Detroit, for appellant.

Robert M. Brownson and Kenneth Murray, both of Detroit, for appellee.

McDONALD, J.

The defendant, Bradstreet Company, began suit against plaintiff, Reid, in the court of common pleas of the city of Detroit on an alleged indebtedness of $469.64. Claiming that he had a set-off which could only be determined by an accounting in equity, Mr. Reid filed this bill for that purpose, and obtained an injunction restraining further prosecution of the action at law. On the hearing, the trial court decided that the defendant was indebted to Mr. Reid in the sum of $3,250, and entered a decree accordingly. The defendant has appealed.

Prior to his resignation in March, 1929, Mr. Reid had been employed by the defendant in various capacities for a continuous period of thirty-four years. On May 1, 1919, he was given charge of its Detroit office as superintendent. On June 23, 1920, they entered into a written contract of employment in which his salary was fixed at $350 per month, and one-third of the profits of the Detroit office. He was also allowed a drawing account of $150 a month, which subsequently was increased to a much larger amount. This contract, except as changed by an alleged oral agreement in regard to compensation, continued in force until Mr. Reid's resignation in 1929. Shortly, subsequent to the contract of 1920, his duties were enlarged. In addition to his work as superintendent, he was made ‘Division Manager’ of the Michigan division of the Bradstreet service in territory outside of the city of Detroit. There was no written agreement covering this employment. The plaintiff says his compensation for that service was adjusted by mutual consent at the close of each fiscal year. The defendant says he was compensated by the allowance of a bonus, the amount of which varied depending on the profits of the business. At the close of the fiscal year of May, 1927, the defendant sent Reid a statement showing his compensation for that year to be $10,365.62. Soon thereafter, when he made his annual visit to the defendant's home office in New York, he protested that the compensation was insufficient. He discussed the matter with Mr. Clark, president of the Bradstreet Company, and it is his claim that an oral agreement was then made by which his future compensation was to be not less than $13,500 per year. The controversy over this agreement, which is strenuously denied by the defendant, gave rise to this suit.

The main issue is one of fact. The trial judge determined it in favor of the plaintiff. For the following reasons we think he was right. It is admitted by Mr. Clark that at the meeting in the New York office, at which time Mr. Reid claims the oral agreement was made, the matter of his future compensation was thoroughly discussed. Reid insisted that if he was to continue in the company's service it must be at an increased compensation. Mr. Clark called in his auditor who figured over the compensation for the preceding five years, which showed a yearly average of $13,500. Thereupon, Mr. Clark directed the auditor to give plaintiff a check for $3,144.48 to bring his compensation for the past year up to $13,500. Thus for there is no dispute in the testimony. The only conflict is as to the time the increased compensation was to continue. Mr. Clark says it was for the year 1927 only, while Mr. Reid claims it was to continue as long as he was...