Singer Manufacturing Company v. Brewer
Decision Date | 17 March 1906 |
Citation | 93 S.W. 755,78 Ark. 202 |
Parties | SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. BREWER |
Court | Arkansas 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.
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:
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-
Alexander v. Williams-Echols Dry Goods Company
...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
... . 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
...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
...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......