Thompson v. Nat'l Cable & Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1913
• Citation: Thompson v. Nat'l Cable & Mfg. Co., 160 Iowa 403, 141 N.W. 912 (Iowa 1913)
• Parties: THOMPSON v. NATIONAL CABLE & MFG. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

160 Iowa 403

141 N.W. 912

THOMPSON

v.NATIONAL CABLE & MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 6, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Hugh Brennan, Judge.

Action to recover for services and for expenses incurred under contract of employment.Trial to a jury.Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.Reversed.Parker, Parrish & Miller, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Guthrie and Miller & Wallingford, all of Des Moines, for appellee.

WITHROW, J.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendantNational Cable & Manufacturing Company, of Niles, Mich., and also against M. G. Mitchell, upon an alleged parol contract made in April, 1909, under which he was to act in the capacity of salesman for the Cable Company in Iowa; the alleged contract having been made with Mitchell as the secretary and agent of the defendant, Cable Company.The defendant Mitchell in answer denied that either for himself or for his codefendant had he entered into a contract with plaintiff for his employment, and denies that plaintiff rendered any services for or in behalf of himself or the Cable Company, or that he expended any money in behalf of either of the defendants.The National Cable & Manufacturing Company for its separate answer admitted that Mitchell was its agent at the time charged, but denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the services alleged to have been performed by the defendant, and said if services were performed, or expenses incurred, they were not for or on behalf of defendant.Defendant further alleged that plaintiff had been paid $200 on account of services and expenses.Upon the conclusion of the evidence the lower court instructed the jury that defendant Mitchell could not be held liable, but submitted to it the question of liability of the Cable Company, appellant, which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered, and from which this appeal has been taken by the National Cable & Manufacturing Company.

[1] 1.For a proper understanding of the questions presented it is necessary to go beyond the general averments of the pleadings.It appears, without dispute, in the evidence that, at the time it is alleged the contract was made between plaintiff and defendant, there was in existence a contract between appellant and E. D. and J. J. Walrath, of Clarksville, Iowa, under which the latter became the agents for the sale of the manufactured articles of plaintiff in Iowa, excepting the two north tiers of counties in the state, and they were to be allowed a commission on all sales made in their territory.The Walraths were to be at whatever expense was necessary to assist local dealers.The claim of the appellant is that whatever contract was entered into was between the Walrath Bros. and the appellee, and that Mitchell assisted only in bringing about an agreement between them.It is further claimed that appellee, prior to entering into the contract, knew of the Walrath agency, and recognized that his employment was by them.An issue of fact, therefore, arose as to the parties to the contract.No fixed amount is claimed to have been agreed upon for plaintiff's services, and his right, if entitled to recover against appellant, would be for the reasonable value of his services, together with such expenses as were actually incurred by him in his employment.It was shown that plaintiff was, and had been for some years, in business in Ankeny, and had been at different times a purchaser from defendant of articles of its manufacture.In 1908he entered into a contract with the defendant relative to dealings between them in connection with his business, connected in no way with his present claim, but which is pertinent to the present inquiry in its bearing upon letters of defendant to plaintiff which, over defendant's objection, were admitted.The whole evidence tended quite strongly to sustain the defense, and to the conclusion that plaintiff's contract was with the Walraths, was so understood by him--they being the ones to whom he originally presented his claim for services--and that he did not attempt to assert his claim against the defendant until after a failure to obtain a settlement with the Walraths, which the evidence tends to show was because of a dispute as to the amount of compensation due him and as to his expense account.

[2] As to all of these facts, however, there was some dispute; and, bearing as they did upon plaintiff's ultimate right to recover we do not hold that the verdict was contrary to the evidence in that respect, although a verdict for the defendant would have had ample support.

[3] 2.What has been said is independent of the question raised in appellant's exceptions that the verdict is contrary to the instructions.Plaintiff sued for $594.84.The jury awarded him $336.72.In the trial the plaintiff admitted that his claim was subject to a credit of $175.He also admitted that he had personally presented his claim to Walrath Bros. covering all matters now claimed by him, itemized, and fixed the amount at $543, with an admitted credit of $175.He kept no detailed expense account as to his hotel bills, but charged $2 per day, under an alleged agreement with the Walraths that he might so do.He admitted that some of his expense charges were incurred on his own business.Excluding the items for which without dispute he could make no claim,...