Wolf v. New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited

Decision Date01 May 1900
Docket Number13,118
Citation52 La.Ann. 1357,27 So. 893
PartiesB. J. WOLF & SONS v. NEW ORLEANS TAILOR-MADE PANTS COMPANY, LIMITED, ET. ALS
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Rehearing refused.

APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, -- Theard, J.

Lazarus & Luce, for Plaintiffs, Appellants.

E Evariste Moise, Giunio F. Socola and John Wagner, for Defendants, Appellees.

OPINION

NICHOLLS C.J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The petition filed in this case is declared to be "the petition of Samuel A. Marcuse, Abraham J. Wolf and Marcus J. Wolf, citizens of the State of Louisiana and residents of the Parish of Orleans, and conducting a commercial business in the City of New Orleans, under the firm name of B. J. Wolf & Sons."

The action is directed against H. Bratman and the New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited, which is declared to be a corporation created under the laws of the State, and judgment in solido is asked against this corporation and Bratman for the sum of five thousand dollars.

The petition sets forth that petitioners are now, and have been for some years preceding the filing of this suit, extensively engaged in the manufacture of clothing, making a specialty of the manufacture of jeans pants, for the country trade; that they have large means engaged in their said business, and employ upward of five hundred people in the conduct thereof; that in order to successfully conduct their business and meet competition with home manufacturers, as well as those situated outside of the State and city, petitioners are obliged to employ a large number of clerks, known to the commercial world as "drummers," through whom the various portions of territory, whose trade petitioners solicit and supply, are canvassed, the said drummers being sent into said territory with samples from which orders are taken and forwarded to petitioners, and, if accepted, filled by them, and the trade thus supplied; that the margin of profit in the conduct of said business, considering the capital invested and the use that is made of the credit of your petitioners, and in consequence of the rivalry and competition of local as well as foreign competitors, amounts to but a fair interest upon their said investments, and that in order to insure reasonable returns and fair profits, the volume of business is an important if not a controlling factor.

That in order to insure the disposition of their manufactured product, they are obliged to employ the class of clerks or drummers, hereinbefore referred to, and that in their selection petitioners at all times hold out advantageous employment and liberal compensation to men having the requisite qualifications to fairly present your petitioners' product to the trade and secure the sale thereof; and that at times petitioners have employed upward of fifteen clerks or drummers, assigning to each specific territory, and giving to each drummer the advantage, in the way of compensation, of commissions on all sales made by them in their respective territories, or orders forwarded to petitioners' firm and secured primarily through said drummers' efforts.

That among the most efficient and capable clerks or drummers in their employ, and whose services were profitable to them, enabling them to effect large sales of their manufactured product, was H. Bratman (whose full name is to petitioners unknown), and who for the period of upwards of three years was in the employ of petitioners, his efforts as salesman being profitable and advantageous to petitioners, and for which they allowed him liberal compensation; that said Bratman secured employment originally with petitioners under a written contract, dated October 5th, 1895, the said contract being without term of employment, but limited, as recited therein, to enable said Bratman to demonstrate his ability as a salesman, with the view of granting him, if the result of his primary trip was satisfactory, permanent employment; that on December 3rd, 1895, said contract was renewed and extended, and again on June 20th, 1896; that under said contract the commissions allowed to said Bratman were fixed subject to certain limitations recited in said contract; that the employment of said Bratman with petitioners was continued uninterruptedly from the period of his first employment; that on May 14th, 1898, the said employment was continued, under written contract bearing said date, and which contract was to run for the period of twelve months from its date, expiring on May 13th, 1899; that, under said contract, said Bratman was to receive a fixed commission for his services, subject to certain conditions therein recited, all of which will more fully and at large appear by reference to said contract, a copy of which is annexed hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit "A."

That the said New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited, and its aforesaid officers and stockholders, in their representative as well as their individual capacities, in furtherance of their personal interests (they being, as petitioners are, advised, believe and charge, the sole stockholders in said corporation), knowing the value of the services of said Bratman, and appreciating his ability as a drummer, the said corporation, dealing in the same class of goods as those manufactured by petitioners, and in order to secure the advantages of the trade which petitioners enjoyed in the territory assigned by them to said Bratman while he was in their employ, combined, confederated and conspired, the one with the other and in their joint interest, for their personal benefit and advantage, and to the injury, damage and wrong of petitioners, to clandestinely secure the services of said Bratman, and entice him from his employment with your petitioners; and that said Bratman, knowing well the measure of his contract obligations with petitioners, but induced by dishonest and sinister motives, yielded to the persuasions of his said co-defendants in committing a breach of his contract and violating the terms thereof to the great wrong, damage and injury of petitioners.

That being advised that negotiations were pending between the defendant company and its officers and stockholders, with said H. Bratman, looking to the employment of the latter in violation of his aforesaid contract, petitioners immediately informed the said corporation, by letter addressed to it under date of November 12th, 1898, that petitioners were entitled solely and exclusively to the benefit and advantage of the services of said H. Bratman, for the period of one year from the date of the aforesaid contract, and which would not expire until May 13th, 1899, and that, during the period of said contract, said Bratman had obligated himself to give petitioners his exclusive time, and to travel for no one else and in no other interest; that notwithstanding said notice and warning to said company and its officers and stockholders, they, without any warrant and in violation of petitioners' rights, employed said Bratman, said employment to begin, as petitioners are advised, on December 15th, 1898, and in this manner inducing said Bratman to violate his contract with petitioners, to the great damage, wrong and injury of the latter, and to the benefit and advantage of said New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited.

That the relations existing between them and said Bratman, and the contract obligations and rights arising therefrom, were disturbed and violated through the wrongful and malicious intervention of said New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited, and the officers and stockholders thereof; and that thereby said Bratman was wrongfully prevented from performing his duty during his relations with petitioners, arising out of his contract obligations; and that employment, as aforesaid, was after notice and with knowledge of the existence of the said contract.

That the territory assigned by them to said Bratman under his contract, and wherein they enjoyed a large and profitable business, has been invaded by said Bratman, in the interest of the said New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited, and its aforesaid officers and stockholders, and under their direction, and that said Bratman, taking advantage of the confidence which petitioners have enjoyed in said territory, is inducing (as petitioners are informed, believe, and so charge) the former customers of petitioners to divert their trade to the said defendant corporation, and this under the direction of said corporation and its officers and stockholders.

That they have used every reasonable effort to diminish their losses consequent upon the aforesaid attempted diversion of their trade through the employment of said Bratman by his said co-defendants, but have been unable to secure the services of a competent, efficient, and reliable man to represent their interests in the said territory previously assigned by them to Bratman, and to secure and hold the trade which petitioners have enjoyed in said locality for and during the period of said Bratman's employment, and which trade said defendants have been attempting to divert, to the prejudice and wrong of plaintiffs.

That repeated efforts have been made by the said New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Company, Limited, and its officers and stockholders, to entice and seduce from the employ of petitioners other clerks and salesmen, whose services have been advantageous and profitable to petitioners, and who the said defendants believed would insure to them a part of the business which petitioners have built up and established by honest conduct and fair dealing; and that said defendant corporation, its agents and stockholders, envious of the reputation and business enjoyed by petitioners, have, as aforesaid, clandestinely approached other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Edco Properties v. Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • May 23, 1979
    ...153 La. 697, 96 So. 536 (1923); Posner v. Little Pine Lumber Co., 157 La. 73, 102 So. 16 (La.1924); Wolf v. New Orleans Tailor-Made Pants Co., 52 La.Ann. 1357, 27 So. 893 (1900); E. B. Hayes Machinery Co. v. Eastham, 147 La. 347, 84 So. 898 (1920); Snyder v. Davidson, 172 La. 274, 134 So. 8......
  • Empire Rice Mill Co. v. K. & E. Neumond
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • October 19, 1912
    ...199 F. 800 EMPIRE RICE MILL CO., Limited, v. K. & E. NEUMOND. No. 13,861.United States ... Chaffe and A. D. Preston, both of New Orleans, for ... plaintiff ... Merrick, ... considered as a company of individuals transacting their ... joint ... 363, 1 So. 929; Wolf v ... Tailor Made Pants Co., 52 La.Ann. 1369, ... ...
  • State v. Morales
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1970
    ... ...         Edward G. Koch, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants-appellees ... 946] as limited by the bill of particulars alleging theft of ... Art. 688; Wolf v. New Orleans Taylor-Made Pants Co., Ltd., 52 ... ...
  • E. B. Hayes Machinery Co. v. Eastham
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1920
    ... ... by the E. B. Hayes Machinery Company against J. H. Eastham ... and others. From ... [84 So. 900] ... Wolf v. New Orleans Tailor Made Pants Co., 52 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT