Weymer v. Belle Plaine Broom Co.
| Decision Date | 05 July 1911 |
| Parties | WEYMER v. BELLE PLAINE BROOM CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Benton County; J. M. Parker, Judge.
Action to recover for extra time or extra services claimed to have been rendered defendant, while in its employ as manager. Claim was also made for some other items, to which reference will be made during the course of the opinion. Defendant denied plaintiff's claims, and pleaded full payment and settlement for all services rendered. Other defenses were also interposed which, in so far as material, will be mentioned as we proceed. Defendant also pleaded a counterclaim for damages against the plaintiff, due to his mismanagement of defendant's business, his want of attention to, and negligence in, the conduct of said business while he (plaintiff) was acting as manager thereof. On these issues the case was tried to a jury, resulting in a directed verdict, which, in effect, dismissed plaintiff's petition and also defendant's counterclaim, and both parties appeal. As plaintiff first perfected his appeal, he will be called appellant. Affirmed.Thomas H. Milner, for appellant.
C. Nichols and C. W. E. Snyder, for appellee.
Defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of brooms at the city of Belle Plaine. In January of the year 1907, it employed plaintiff to act as manager of its manufacturing department for the term of five years. By the terms of the agreement, plaintiff was to receive the sum of $2.50 per day, and in addition at the end of each year one-fourth of the net profits of that year. Plaintiff was given authority to employ and discharge men, and defendant had power to terminate the contract at any time on six months' notice to plaintiff, in the event that the enterprise should show a loss. Plaintiff immediately entered upon the discharge of his duties and so continued until May 20, 1909, when he claims defendant summarily discharged him.
This action was brought June 15, 1909, and in it plaintiff seeks to recover upon quantum meruit for services rendered, not under the contract, but apart therefrom, on the theory that they were not covered by the contract, but were rendered at defendant's instance and request. He also asked compensation for the use of a horse which he claimed he furnished to defendant for use in its business, and also asked to recover the value of services performed by his (plaintiff's) minor son for the defendant. Defendant denied that plaintiff rendered any extra services, claimed that whatever he did was under his contract as manager, and that for all services rendered he has been paid, and that his account has been settled in full. It admitted the use of the horse by plaintiff, but denied that such use was at its request, and says that plaintiff voluntarily used the animal for his own purposes, without at any time intending to charge therefor. It admitted that it employed plaintiff's son in its factory, but says that he had been fully paid for all services rendered; that payments were made on plaintiff's O. K.'s, and that plaintiff is now estopped from making any claim for work, extra or otherwise, done by the son. Defendant also filed a counterclaim in the sum of $1,000 for damages due it because of plaintiff's negligence and mismanagement of its (defendant's) business, his absence from his post, failure to follow defendant's instructions, and antagonizing them in their business. Such were the issues, and after hearing all the testimony the trial court directed a verdict for defendant, thus dismissing both the petition and the counterclaim. Appellant's argument deals solely with the proposition that the court was in error in dismissing the petition; the claim being that the testimony was sufficient to support one or more of the claims made therein. On its cross-appeal defendant insists that its counterclaim should have been submitted to the jury.
[1] The essence of plaintiff's claim is that, while he was employed as manager of the factory, defendant sent him out upon the “road” to select and buy broom corn, and to sell and dispose of the manufactured product. In these capacities he claims to have traveled in Kansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, South Dakota, and perhaps some other states. During all of these times he claims to have been acting as defendant's manager, and admits that he rendered bills to defendant for the sum of $2.50 per day, and also included therein his expenses. These bills were rendered, from time to time, as the services were performed, and plaintiff was each time paid the amount thereof. Moreover, except for the first few weeks while plaintiff was performing what are now claimed to be extra services, for which he should have additional compensation, he was paid 50 cents per day more than his agreement called for; he (plaintiff) having demanded this increase on account of the work he was doing. Not until after his discharge did plaintiff make any such claims as were included in his petition. He did present his bills for compensation and expenses, and these bills were promptly paid. Again plaintiff claims extra compensation for time employed about defendant's factory in writing shipping tags, claiming that this was no part of his duty as manager, and that he should have pay for this work as an extra. These items were not included in his bills, and nothing was heard of them until this action commenced. Plaintiff employed his two sons to work for defendant and having a horse and light wagon he and the boys used it to carry them from their homes to and from the factory. This was four times per day. The horse and wagon were also at times used to haul broom corn and brooms to and from the factory. Plaintiff used the “rig” as he pleased and when he pleased, but never made any claim for the use thereof until after his discharge by defendant. There is no claim that defendant ever requested the use of the horse, although, through its officers, it knew that the outfit was used at times in the conduct of its business. Nothing was ever said about it, however, in any bills rendered by plaintiff during the time the horse and wagon were being used.
The other claim presented by pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial