Singer Manufacturing Company v. Brewer

Decision Date17 March 1906
Citation93 S.W. 755,78 Ark. 202
PartiesSINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BREWER
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Antonio B. Grace, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Austin & Danaher, for appellant.

The fourth clause of the contract precludes a recovery by the plaintiff. The contract was reasonable, and plaintiff is bound by its terms. Inasmuch as the contract provided that the agreement could be terminated at the pleasure of either appellant committed no wrong in terminating appellee's agency.

Taylor & Jones, for appellee.

A reasonable construction of the contract will not defeat the plaintiff of pay already earned at the time the agreement is terminated. 3 Ark. 222; Ib. 258. The law does not favor forfeitures. 67 Ark. 553.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, J.

Appellee, W. F. Brewer, was employed by appellant as its agent, and brought this action to recover the sum of $ 308.57 alleged to be due him, according to contract, for commissions on sales of sewing machines made by him in the course of his employment. There was a written contract between the parties prescribing the duties of appellee as "managing salesman for the company at its sub-office in the city of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and that part of the contract fixing the compensation to be paid to him for his services is as follows:

"Third. The company agrees to pay the said party of the second part for all his services the following compensation with the restrictions and limitations hereinafter expressed:

"A. A salary at the rate of twelve dollars per week, lost time to be deducted, which shall include the use and keeping of horse and wagon.

"B. A commission of fifteen per cent. of the value of all sales or leases of family machines at retail list prices made by said company, said commission to be computed on the net value after all deductions for old machines or discounts shall have been made. This commission shall be payable only as payments in cash are made on said sales and leases, and paid over to said company, and shall be at the rate of fifty per cent. of such cash payments until the full amount of commission shall have been paid, except on leases where the payment is less than $ 5, then commission shall be payable from the second and subsequent payments.

"C. A remitting commission of five per cent. on the actual amount of money remitted by him from said sub-office, and said remittances are to be made only from money remaining on hand after payment of the running expenses of said sub-office and any advances from division or department headquarters for expenses are to be deducted from such remittance in computing this percentage.

"Fourth. It is expressly understood and agreed between the parties hereto that the foregoing compensation shall be full payment and satisfaction for all services of every kind and nature rendered by said party of the second part, and that all his claims therefor shall cease immediately upon the termination of this agreement.

* * * *

"Tenth. This agreement may be terminated at the pleasure of either party."

Appellant discharged appellee from its service on January 15, 1903, and paid the amount of all commissions collected up to that time on sales. The commissions sued for were on sales made upon installment plan prior to his discharge, but the amounts were not collected until after he was discharged from service.

The sole question presented by the appeal is whether, under the contract, appellee was entitled to commission on sales made during his period of service where the collections were made after his discharge.

It is the contention of appellant that appellee was entitled only to commission on collections made while he was in service and that he was precluded from recovering commissions on collections made after his discharge by the fourth clause of the contract which provides that "all his claims therefor shall cease immediately upon the termination of this agreement." We do not think that the proper interpretation of the contract supports that contention. It will be observed that the contract provides three methods of compensation for the services of the agent, viz.: (1) A fixed salary of $ 12 per week, which included pay for the use of his horse and wagon; (2) a commission of fifteen per cent. on all sales or leases of machines, the same to be payable as payments on the sales or leases which were made, and (3) a remitting commission of five per cent. on the net amounts collected and remitted to the company.

It is evident that the commission of fifteen per cent. was intended as compensation for the sales and leases, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Alexander v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Company
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 10 Diciembre 1923
    ...who drew it. 73 Ark. 338; 115 Ark. 166; 112 Ark. 1; 151 Ark. 81; 12 Pa. C. Ct. Rep. 363; 126 F. 831; 173 F. 855; 195 F. 731; 94 Ark. 493; 78 Ark. 202. It is well-settled rule of this court that it is the duty of the court to construe a written contract. 101 Ark. 353. The court erred in admi......
  • James A. Head & Co. v. Rolling
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 13 Septiembre 1956
    ... . Page 828 . 90 So.2d 828 . 265 Ala. 328 . JAMES A. HEAD & COMPANY, Inc. . v. . Fred ROLLING et al. . 6 Div. 954. . Supreme Court of ...170, 13 N.W.2d 549; .         Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Brewer, 78 Ark. 202, 93 S.W. 755; . ...341] equipment for Kewaunee Manufacturing Co. at Auburn, which had been sold by Head through Rolling, he met Rolling ......
  • Superior Imp. Co. v. Mastic Corp., 80-117
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 29 Septiembre 1980
    ...are fairly susceptible of more than one construction to adopt a construction which will not work a forfeiture. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Brewer, 78 Ark. 202, 93 S.W. 755; Scrinopskie v. Meidert, supra. As between reasonable constructions, one of which would make the contract unenforceable......
  • Mullins & Kyte v. Road Improvement District No. 5
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 4 Febrero 1924
    ...If the language of the contract is doubtful, that construction should be adopted which will impose the least hardship upon the parties. 78 Ark. 202. And all doubts should be resolved against the party who prepared the contract--in this instance, the district. 112 Ark. 1; 115 Ark. 166. See a......
  • 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