Tiffin Glass Co. v. Stoehr

• Decision Date: 25 February 1896
• Citation: 43 N.E. 279,54 Ohio St. 157
• Parties: TIFFIN GLASS CO. v. STOEHR.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

43 N.E. 279

54 Ohio St. 157

TIFFIN GLASS CO. v. STOEHR.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

February 25, 1896

Error to circuit court, Seneca county.

Action by Daniel H. Stoehr against the Tiffin Glass Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where, on the facts stated in a petition, a plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for money, the fact that, in his petition, he claims the amount to be due him as wages on a contract of employment, instead of as damages for the breach of it, is not material to his right of recovery. A misconception of this kind must be disregarded in passing judgment upon the pleading.

2. Where a corporation is liable in damages to an agent for having wrongfully discharged him from its service under a contract for a definite period, and is subsequently dissolved by the judgment of a court on the petition of its stockholders, it remains liable to the party injured notwithstanding the dissolution. Section 5684, Rev. St.

Noble Kippet & Noble, for plaintiff in error.

Seney & Sayler, for defendant in error.

MINSHALL, J.

The action below was brought by Daniel H. Stoehr against the Tiffin Glass Company for the amount due him upon a contract of service. By the contract the company had employed the plaintiff as a traveling salesman in its business at the rate of $150 per month from July 1, 1890, to January 1, 1892, and his expenses. The plaintiff entered upon his employment, and continued to serve the defendant until December 26, 1890 when the company, being in embarrassed circumstances, and having no further use for his services, discharged him. On March 5, 1891, he commenced suit for the amount, $486.74 then due him, March 1st, being the difference between his salary and expenses at that time and the amount that had been paid him. After the expiration of his term of service, on January 15, 1892, he filed a supplemental petition, in which he averred that, after diligent effort to obtain employment, he had been able to earn but $875.72; that, in his efforts to obtain employment, he had expended $134.92; and so that, allowing a credit for what he had earned, there was due him the additional sum of $759.18, with interest, for which, with the original sum claimed, he asked judgment. The defendant answered. The making of the agreement was admitted, but issue was taken upon many of the other averments, and, as a separate defense, it was averred that, on February 1, 1891, the glass company was, by order of the court of common pleas of Seneca county, in a proceeding duly instituted, declared dissolved, and that it thereafter had no legal existence or power to do business, or to accept or pay for the services of the plaintiff. The case was tried to the court, which found the averments of the petition and supplemental petition to be true; and while it did not allow the plaintiff for the expenses incurred by him in his efforts to obtain employment, rendered judgment in his favor for the amount due according to the agreement, less the amount paid him, and what he had earned, making $1,187.32. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and, on error, the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court. Two errors are relied on: (1) That the plaintiff mistook his remedy; and (2) that, by the dissolution of the corporation, it ceased to exist, and was no longer liable on its contract of employment with the plaintiff.

1. As to the first objection, that the plaintiff mistook his remedy. This is based, we think, on a misapprehension of the character of the plaintiff's petition. It is claimed to be an action to recover the wages due the plaintiff on the contract, whereas, it should have been to recover damages for the breach of it. We agree with the counsel that, on the facts as pleaded, the plaintiff could not, properly speaking, recover for wages on the contract, and that his right of recovery was damages for the breach of it. But the facts pleaded, the making of the contract, his discharge, efforts to obtain employment, and the allowance of what he earned thereby, entitled him to recover, as damages, the difference between what he earned and what he would have received had he not been wrongfully discharged. James v. Allen Co., 44 Ohio St. 226, 6 N.E. 246. And under the liberal principles of our Code,...