Webster v. Schauble
| Decision Date | 11 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 37233,37233 |
| Citation | 400 P.2d 292,65 Wn.2d 849 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | M. A. WEBSTER and Clara M. Webster, his wife, Respondents, v. Roland E. SCHAUBLE and Jane Doe Schauble, his wife, Howard E. Schauble and Jane Doe Schauble, his wife, and Albert E. Schauble and Jane Doe Schauble, his wife, Appellants. Ernest Schauble and Jane Doe Schauble, his wife, Defendants. |
Brown & Thayer, Robert Brown, Spokane, for appellants.
Hancox & Kimer, Grant L. Kimer, Spokane, for respondents.
M. A. Webster 1 had an unfortunate experience as a result of probably unfair and certainly ruthless treatment by three brothers (Roland, Howard, and Albert Schauble 2). The extent, if any, to which the Schaubles are legally liable for Webster's conceded financial losses, his loss of employment, and injuries to his reputation and standing in the brokerage community by reason of his association and experience with them, is the crux of this appeal.
Webster, as an employee of others, had become an experienced broker in the agricultural commodities field. Desirous of participating in the profits of such a brokerage business, he joined the Schauble brothers in opening an agricultural commodity brokerage office in Spokane on March 1, 1962, under the name of Ag-Trade, Inc. 3
The paid in capital with which the business opened was $15,000. Webster and each of the Schauble brothers put in $3,000, and their father, Ernest Schauble, put in the other $3,000. Each was issued 30 shares of stock. Webster secured his $3,000 by borrowing it from the Farmington State Bank. This extension of credit to Webster was arranged by the Schaubles, although they did not guarantee the payment. Webster and his wife signed the note, pledging their 30 shares of stock as collateral. Webster had been receiving a salary of $600 a month, and that was what he was to receive from Ag-Trade, Inc., as manager and treasurer; but an additional $50 a month was to be paid by Ag-Trade, Inc. to the bank to apply on the principal and interest on the Webster note.
The Schauble brothers were all directors of Ag-Trade, Inc. Roland was president; Howard was vice-president; Albert was secretary; and Webster was treasurer. 4 The Schauble brothers determined the policies of the company and put restrictions and limitations on Webster, as manager, in doing business with certain concerns which they regarded as accounts of their partnership brokerage business. They also directed him not to do business with other concerns and individuals that they had found to be poor credit risks.
Whether Ag-Trade, Inc. was making a little money or losing substantial amounts was a hotly debated issue; but, in any event, on September 27 the Schaubles, as the controlling faction in the corporation, moved in and discharged Webster as manager, closed the office in Spokane, cut off the telephone, and moved the furniture and records to their place of business in St. John. They completed all contracts and commitments which Ag-Trade, Inc. had made, but sought no new business. Concerning the closing of the office, the trial court made the following finding:
Finding No. 10.
Webster was left without any means of paying his note at the bank, on which $2,765 remained unpaid. He had not been able to secure other employment. He brought this action on the ground of fraud claiming damages because of the amount due on the note, the loss of employment, and loss of reputation and standing in the community.
The final finding of the trial court was:
'* * * The plaintiff is entitled to six months additional salary at the rate of $600.00 per month, the amount he was receiving monthly when he was discharged, or a total of $3,600.00. * * *' The judgment entered was for $3,600 against the Schauble brothers and their marital communities; and from this judgment they appeal.
This is not, as respondent asserts, a factual appeal. While the appellants make numerous assignments of error to specific findings of fact, we can accept all the findings of fact as verities and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.
...refused to answer appellant's interrogatories directed at ascertaining the reasons for appellant's dismissal. Citing Webster v. Schauble, 65 Wash.2d 849, 400 P.2d 292 (1965), St. Regis argued that because appellant's employment was terminable at will, the inquiries were not relevant and wou......
-
Snyder v. Medical Service Corp.
...for a specified period of time." Roberts v. Atl. Richfield Co., 88 Wash.2d 887, 891, 568 P.2d 764 (1977) (citing Webster v. Schauble, 65 Wash.2d 849, 400 P.2d 292 (1965)). We recognize an exception to the terminable-at-will doctrine by permitting a cause of action for wrongful discharge onl......
-
Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc.
...Wash.2d 219, 223, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984); Roberts v. Atl. Richfield Co., 88 Wash.2d 887, 891, 568 P.2d 764 (1977); Webster v. Schauble, 65 Wash.2d 849, 852, 400 P.2d 292 (1965). 7. While Knight suggests that three years of continued employment may be sufficient, our decision today does not es......
-
Greaves v. Medical Imaging Systems, Inc.
...122 Wash.2d 544, 548 n. 3, 859 P.2d 51 (1993)).6 Roberts v. ARCO, 88 Wash.2d 887, 891, 568 P.2d 764 (1977) (citing Webster v. Schauble, 65 Wash.2d 849, 400 P.2d 292 (1965)); accord Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros. Furniture Co., 46 Wash.2d 408, 281 P.2d 832 (1955).7 In Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S.......
-
At Will Employment in Washington: a Review of Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co. and Its Progeny
...46 Wash. 2d 408, 281 P.2d 832 (1955). 28. Roberts v. ARCO, 88 Wash. 2d 887, 568 P.2d 674 (1977); Webster v. Schauble, 65 Wash. 2d 849, 400 P.2d 292 (1965). 29. 88 Wash. 2d 887, 568 P.2d 674 (1977). 30. Id. at 889, 568 P.2d at 766. 31. Id. at 894, 568 P.2d at 768-69. 32. Id. at 895, 568 P.2d......
-
Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence: Washington Gives at Will Employees a Gun With No Ammunition to Fight Against Unjust Dismissal
...342 S.E.2d 453, 459 (W. Va. 1986). 29. See Roberts v. ARCO, 88 Wash. 2d 887, 568 P.2d 764 (1977); Webster v. Schauble, 65 Wash. 2d 849, 400 P.2d 292 (1965); Lasser v. Grunbaum Bros. Furniture Co., 46 Wash. 2d 408, 281 P.2d 832 30. See supra notes 14-17 and accompanying text. 31. Wash. Rev. ......