Soule v. St. Joseph Railway, Light, Heat & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1925
• Citation: 274 S.W. 517,220 Mo.App. 497
• Parties: HARRY SOULE, RESPONDENT, v. ST. JOSEPH RAILWAY, LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO., APPELLANT
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

274 S.W. 517

220 Mo.App. 497

HARRY SOULE, RESPONDENT, v. ST. JOSEPH RAILWAY, LIGHT, HEAT & POWER CO., APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

June 29, 1925

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County.--Hon. L. A Vories, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Chas H. Mayer and Floyd M. Sprague for appellant.

A. J Bielby and W. T. Meikle for respondent.

ARNOLD, J. Bland, J., concurs; Trimble, P. J., absent.

OPINION

ARNOLD, J.--

This is an action for damages based upon the alleged refusal of defendant to give plaintiff a service letter as required by section 9780, Revised Statutes 1919. Defendant is a corporation engaged in operating a street railway and other public service in the city of St. Joseph, Missouri. Plaintiff entered the employ of defendant on July 15, 1918, as a motorman in the operation of a street car, and continued as such employee until September 12, 1921, at which time, as stated in the petition, plaintiff's services with defendant ceased.

On December 14, 1921, plaintiff requested of defendant a service letter "setting forth the nature and character of the service rendered by plaintiff to such company and the nature and duration thereof, and truly stating for what cause, if any, such employee has quit such service." This request is shown to have been made to one Fred Henderson, superintendent of the street railway department of defendant company. It is in evidence that it was the duty of Henderson, at least in part, to employ and discharge employees of the company, and that he had charge of the men in that department of whom plaintiff was one. When the request by plaintiff was made to Henderson for the service letter, Henderson asked plaintiff to be seated, left the room and in a few minutes returned and said to plaintiff that Mr. Koss "would fix him up shortly," or words to that effect. The evidence shows that Mr. Koss, in a few moments, handed plaintiff the following letter:

"St. Joseph Railway, Light, Heat & Power Company,

St. Joseph, Mo. December 14, 1921.

"To Whom it May Concern:

"The bearer of this letter, Mr. Harry A. Soule, whose signature appears below, worked for this Company as motorman from July 15, 1918 to September 12, 1921.

"(Signed) O. F. KOSS,

"Supt. of Transportation."

"Harry A. Soule.

Plaintiff testified that in seeking employment, he presented said letter to several persons and failed to secure employment but he does not say directly that such failure at any of these places was due to the character of the letter above set out. Plaintiff testified he was not satisfied with the letter, that he saw Mr. Koss relative to it and that Mr. Koss told him that said letter was all that he would give him; that no complaint about the letter was made to Henderson.

Plaintiff testified he had presented the letter to one C. A. Kohrman, a butcher, who had a vacancy as a driver; that a driver had notified Kohrman he was going to quit; that Kohrman, when shown the letter, had remarked: "That don't say as much about you as I know about you now." However, Kohrman testified he never had seen the letter and that the application was made after he had hired someone for the job about to be vacated. Plaintiff's testimony further shows that he presented the letter to another butcher "on the avenue," and told him he would like to have the job with him then vacant as a driver; that he did not secure the employment; that he never had presented the letter to any corporation in his efforts to secure employment. That "after these two merchants had dealings with men that had adequate service letters and so on they laughed at me, I thought I wouldn't make a fool of myself talking to a man that knew what to expect from a man, so I never presented it to a corporation."

Plaintiff stated his salary with defendant was $ 145 per month when he worked all the time. On having his memory refreshed by his counsel, plaintiff testified that he applied to the Oklahoma Producing & Refining Company for a position, but failed to secure it. He does not say that he presented the letter in connection with this application, nor that the letter was in any way instrumental in his failure to secure the position sought. He further testified that he secured employment with the Wylie Mer. Co.; that in securing this position he did not present the letter in question because he "was afraid they might call the company up." He worked for the Wylie company about seven weeks at which time he was discharged because his employer "was not satisfied," and that this was the only reason given for his discharge.

Defendant's testimony chiefly was directed toward a showing that plaintiff's services with the company were highly unsatisfactory, leading strongly to the inference that plaintiff was discharged for this reason and that a letter in strict conformity with the requirements of the statute could have been no benefit to plaintiff in securing employment.

The petition alleges that because of the refusal of defendant to give plaintiff the service letter required by the statute he has been unable to secure employment from other corporations and individuals; that he was able to earn $ 145 to $ 150 per month as a motorman with defendant, and that by reason of the company's refusal to give him the service letter required by the statute, he was unable to secure employment in that line of work, and that said refusal was willful.

The answer admits defendant's corporate status and that plaintiff was one of its former employees; that he was discharged about the date named in the petition, and denies all other allegations of the petition. The trial was to a jury, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $ 300. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were unavailing and defendant appeals.

Appellant charges the court erred in refusing defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and in support of this charge declares there was no evidence to sustain a finding that plaintiff requested a letter of the superintendent, or manager of defendant corporation. It is argued that the statute (section 9780) requires that such application be made to the superintendent, or manager, The section referred to reads as follows:

"Whenever any employee of any corporation doing business in this State shall be discharged or voluntarily quit the service of such corporation, it shall be the duty of the superintendent or manager of said corporation, upon the request of such employee (if such employee shall have been in the service of said corporation for a period of at least ninety days), to issue to such employee a letter, duly signed by such superintendent or manager, setting forth the nature and character of service rendered by such employee to such corporation and the...