Sullivan v. McEttrick

• Decision Date: 09 April 1924
• Citation: 143 N.E. 536,248 Mass. 496
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. McETTRICK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

248 Mass. 496

143 N.E. 536

SULLIVAN

v.McETTRICK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

April 9, 1924.

Report from Superior Court, Norfolk County; R. W. Irwin, Judge.

Action of contract by Catherine L. Sullivan against Edward A. McEttrick to recover on a note. On report. Judgment ordered for plaintiff.

C. M. Davenport, of Boston, for plaintiff.

E. A. McEttrick, of Brookline, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

This action is to recover on a promissory note, signed by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff or order, for the sum of $400. The answer alleged that the note was without consideration, that it was for the debt of a corporation, and that it was ‘repudiated by the defendant by a written notice to the plaintiff.’

There was evidence that the plaintiff became the superintendent of the Summit Hospital on September 1, 1917; that the defendant ‘personally had hired her’ (the plaintiff); that she understood Mr. McEttrick ‘managed and ran the hospital; that he was the only person from whom she had ever received any instructions, and of whom she inquired when she wanted information or direction; that she had never known of any board of managers or any one else having anything to do with the hospital and that no one else had ever visited it’; that when she left the employment the sum of $411 was due her for wages; ‘that when she settled up with Mr. McEttrick he paid her $11 in cash and gave her the $400 promissory note’ in suit; ‘that before he gave her this note he said that if she wanted to have him he would raise the money, but that it would be a hardship to do so.’ The defendant testified that the plaintiff said ‘the hospital owed her $400 for her services and she wished something to show that she was owed that amount of money’; that thereupon he gave her the note; that on looking into the matter he found that the hospital was not indebted to her to the extent she claimed.

At the close of the evidence the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, with the stipulation that if this was error judgment should be entered for the plaintiff. The case is before us on a report.

There was evidence that the note was the personal obligation of the defendant. It was a question of fact for the jury to decide whether the defendant ‘personally had hired’ the plaintiff, as she testified; if he did, he was responsible to her for the service rendered. From the fact that the defendant owned ‘practically all of the stock’ of the corporation; that he managed the hospital, and the plaintiff as superintendent never knew of a board of managers or of any one except the defendant being in control and direction of its affairs; together with the evidence that the plaintiff took ‘the position of superintendent of the hospital for Mr. McEttrick’ and ‘continued employment for Mr. McEttrick at his hospital’ and he ‘personally had hired’ her, a jury could find that the plaintiff's services were performed for the defendant and that he was directly responsible to her. The note itself was prima...