Slonaker v. P.G. Publishing Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4 |
| Citation | 13 A.2d 48,338 Pa. 292 |
| Parties | Slonaker, Appellant, v. P.G. Publishing Company |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 21, 1940.
Appeal, No. 4, March T., 1940, from judgment of C.P Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1937, No. 1425, in case of Samuel McK. Slonaker v. P.G. Publishing Company. Judgment affirmed.
Assumpsit. Before RICHARDSON, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict for plaintiff and judgment entered for defendant n.o.v Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was judgment n.o.v.
Judgment affirmed.
M. H. Hirschfield, of McCrady, McClure, Nicklas & Hirschfield, for appellant.
Lawrence D. Blair, with him M. H. Ewing and Moorhead & Knox, for appellee.
Before SCHAFFER, C.J., MAXEY, DREW, STERN, BARNES and PATTERSON, JJ.
In 1930 one Leo T. Bowman conducted a newspaper distributing business in the Dormont district of Allegheny County. He was the sole distributor there of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a daily newspaper published by defendant company. He offered to sell to plaintiff the part of his business which related to the Post-Gazette. Plaintiff visited Raymond Foudray, defendant's circulation manager, and had a conversation with him upon which he bases his cause of action in the present suit. According to plaintiff's version of the interview, he wanted to find out from Foudray "whether it would be all right to buy the news agency from Mr. Bowman." He told Foudray that his motive in coming to see him was "about buying Mr. Bowman's business and the exclusive right to handle the Post-Gazette in Dormont," that the price involved was about $4,600, which he thought was "a lot of money to invest in the newspaper game." Foudray replied: "It is not so much money when you are buying the exclusive agency of the Post-Gazette in Dormont," adding that plaintiff "would be the only one up there handling the Post-Gazette," that "there is a possibility of the Post-Gazette coming out with a Sunday paper and if that is the case it will increase your earning power and increase the resale value," that plaintiff "couldn't handle any other paper except the Post-Gazette," and that at any time he wanted to sell his business he could do so and Foudray would help him sell it. Plaintiff asked whether "the agent receives a car allowance," and was answered in the affirmative. A discussion followed as to the amount, which was settled at a subsequent interview by Foudray agreeing to give plaintiff $30 a week car allowance in case he bought the business. A couple of weeks later plaintiff made the deal with Bowman and for more than six years thereafter acted as sole distributor for the Post-Gazette in the Dormont district.
In September, 1936, plaintiff publicly advertised the business for sale. When this came to Foudray's attention he told plaintiff he could not sell the exclusive right to handle the Post-Gazette in that district, and shortly afterwards defendant company refused to sell its newspapers to plaintiff and began making distribution in Dormont through its own employees.
The present suit is to recover the sum of $4,000 alleged by plaintiff to be the fair and reasonable value of his business of which he claims to have been deprived by defendant, together with the sum of $2,010 alleged to be due for unpaid car allowance. The jury returned a verdict for $4,252.53, but the court entered judgment for defendant n.o.v. Plaintiff appeals. His theory, as set forth in his statement of claim, is that his conversation with Foudray constituted a contract between him and defendant whereby, if he would purchase Bowman's business for $4,600, defendant would, as long as he owned and operated the business, give him the exclusive right to purchase its newspapers for resale and distribution in the Dormont district at the rate of $2.25 per hundred papers, and would pay him $30 a week as car allowance, and, further, that he would have the right to resell the business at any time, and if and when he desired to sell it defendant company would assist him to do so in every way within its power.
Doubt immediately arises as to whether Foudray's remarks established a contract, or whether they amounted to nothing more than advice given to plaintiff at his own request in regard to the desirability of his proposed purchase from Bowman, with an accompanying expression of encouragement and good will. Viewing them as effecting a contractual obligation, as apparently defendant is willing to concede they nevertheless fall far short of the scope attributed to them by plaintiff and necessary to support his cause of action. They do not contain an intimation, much less an assurance, that if plaintiff bought Bowman's business his right to act as sole distributor in the Dormont district would be continued for any definite length of time. According to plaintiff's interpretation Foudray contractually obligated defendant company to vest in plaintiff, who was then twenty-five years of age, an exclusive agency as long as he cared to exercise it, -- even for life if he so desired. It might be asked in this connection whether a resale would carry with it a similar measure of duration and so on in perpetuity to all future assignees, or whether the agency in the hands of a purchaser from plaintiff would be reducible, at the moment of purchase, to one terminable at the will of defendant. Obviously, all that could reasonably be inferred from what Foudray said is that if...
To continue reading
Request your trial