Thomas A. Edison, Inc. v. Kidd
| Decision Date | 08 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 263. |
| Citation | 242 F. 923 |
| Parties | THOMAS A. EDISON, Inc., v. KIDD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
This is a writ of error by the defendant below to review a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff for $6,885.45. The parties will be referred to hereafter as they appeared in the District Court, viz., as plaintiff and defendant.
White & Case, of New York City (James J. Porter and Joseph M Hartfield, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Everett Clarke & Benedict, of New York City (Herman S. Hertwig and George M. Clarke, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
It appears from the testimony that the defendant in order to sell its machines and records conceived the idea of engaging some of the most popular singers to give entertainments in connection with the Edison phonograph. The artist would first sing and immediately thereafter the same song would be reproduced by the phonograph, giving the audience an opportunity to compare the voice of the phonograph with the voice of the singer. The plaintiff was employed by Verdi E B. Fuller acting for the Edison Company. He had acted in the same capacity before and, prior to the engagement of the plaintiff, he was known as general supervisor of the musical division of the Edison Company.
The principal question, as pointed out by Judge Learned Hand relates to the contract of employment and is one of fact. It is admitted that a contract was made but the dispute is as to the terms thereof. The plaintiff insists that the contract was that the Edison Company should employ her at the rate of $300 per week from October 15th to April 1st and that this amount was to be paid, whether the Edison Company booked her or not. The defendant insists that it agreed to pay her only for those weeks during which she was booked with the dealers. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the full amount demanded, viz., $6,885.45. We think the verdict was fully justified by the proof. It seems highly improbable that a popular singer like the plaintiff would make an agreement which bound her to the defendant for nearly six months with the understanding that she receive nothing for this period unless the Edison agent succeeded in booking her. It is not surprising that the jury thought it most improbable that such a unilateral contract was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cange v. Stotler and Co., Inc.
...to book her for, instructions which were not told to plaintiff. Kidd v. Thomas A. Edison, Inc., 239 F. 405 (S.D.N.Y.1917), affirmed, 242 F. 923 (2d Cir.1917). He reasoned that the scope of an agency must be measured "not alone by the words in which it is created, but by the whole setting in......
-
Sklavos v. OKI–DO Ltd.
...actual consent, and indeed in the face of his own instructions" ( Kidd v. Thomas A. Edison, Inc. , 239 F. 405, 407 [S.D.NY], aft, 242 F. 923 [2d Cir. 1917] ).Initially the Court must thank Counsel, Mr. Siris and Mr. Del Valle for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Smith for the Defense for their eloque......
-
Standard Distributors v. Federal Trade Commission
...5 Responsibility for Tortious Acts, VII Harvard Law Review, pp. 397-405; Kidd v. Thomas A. Edison Inc., D.C., 239 F. 405; affirmed 2 Cir., 242 F. 923. 6 International Association etc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 311 U.S. 72, 80, 61 S.Ct. 83, 85 L.Ed. 50; H. J. Heinz Co. v. National L......
-
Menard, Inc. v. Dage-MTI, Inc.
...to book her for, instructions which were not told to plaintiff. Kidd v. Thomas A. Edison, Inc., 239 F. 405 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 242 F. 923 (2d Cir.1917). He reasoned that the scope of an agency must be measured "not alone by the words in which it is created, but by the whole setting in which ......
-
A Shallow Harbor and a Cold Horizon: the Deceptive Promise of Modern Agency Law for the Theory of the Firm
...1917). 64. Id. at 405. 65. Id. 66. See id. at 406. 67. See id. 68. See id. at 405-06. 69. Id. at 405. 70. Thomas A. Edison, Inc. v. Kidd, 242 F. 923 (2d Cir. 1917). 71. Id. at 924. 72. Kidd, 239 F. 405 at 406-08. 73. Id. at 406. 74. Id. at 407. 75. Id. 76. Id. 77. See generally Gerald Gunth......