Seymour v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling Mills

• Decision Date: 29 April 1885
• Citation: 56 Mich. 117,23 N.W. 186
• Parties: SEYMOUR v. DETROIT COPPER & BRASS ROLLING MILLS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

23 N.W. 186

56 Mich. 117

SEYMOUR v. DETROIT COPPER & BRASS ROLLING MILLS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 29, 1885

Motion for rehearing.

Charles M. Swift, for the motion.

SHERWOOD J.

The opinion in this case was filed at the last January term of this court. 22 N.W. 317. The judgment at the circuit was affirmed. Motion is now made for a rehearing upon two gounds (1) Because the facts were misconceived and misstated in the opinion of the court; (2) because the law as stated by the court, applied to the facts as they correctly appear, will render a reversal necessary. We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs of defendant's counsel, used upon the argument, and filed upon this motion for rehearing, and find that we neither mistook the facts nor misapplied the law in the opinion given or judgment rendered. The proposition made to the company by plaintiff, and upon which he consented to enter its service, and be permitted to have the stock, was in writing, mentioned in the record as Exhibit A, and is as follows:

"APRIL 6, 1881.

"Copy of proposition to the Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling Mills to engage in their employ.

"(1) To be elected a member of the board of directors. (2) To be elected superintendent, and have entire charge of manufacturing department. (3) To have five or ten thousand dollars' capital stock, with time on its payment. (4) To be paid as salary at rate of three thousand dollars per year."

In pursuance of the action of the directors, properly taken, the proposition was accepted by the company, through its president, Mr. Gillett, by telegram as follows:

"WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, ETC.

"Dated DETROIT, March 27, 1881.

"Received at twenty-ninth April.

"To Fred. J. Seymour, care Col. J.A. Hall: We accept your offer on terms proposed by you, and want you as soon as possible. When may we expect you? Answer. R.W. GILLETT, President."

Mr Gillett says, in his testimony, he sent this telegram to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff says this was the only contract he ever made with the company. Mr. Gillett further states that the plaintiff made a verbal proposition to him in March previous, which the company refused to accept; that this was the plaintiff's only proposition to him; and that he never saw the paper of which Exhibit A is a copy. This does not contradict the statement, or the fact that a written proposition was submitted to the directors, and accepted by the telegram he sent for the company. Mr. Gillett says the plaintiff was never elected or in any way appointed by the board of directors to the office or position of superintendent of the company's manufacturing department, and there is no evidence contradicting him upon this subject. Gillett's employing him for the position is one thing; and the board of directors' electing or appointing him to it is quite another. One commands proper compensation for the service rendered; the other, position, dignity,...