Farm Electric Utilities Corp. v. Hartson

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant corporation ■as its sales manager for an initial term of one year, under a contract in writing, dated May 5th, 1922, which provided that he should receive a salary of $6,000 for the first year of his service, payable in equal semi-annual installments of $250, and also a commission of one dollar on every electric generating outfit sold by the company and paid for during the stated period of the employment. On December 6th, 1922, the plaintiff was discharged from his position because of a disagreement resulting from his refusal to accept payment for a portion of his earned salary in preferred stock of the company. It is alleged, and denied, that he agreed to accept stock in part payment of his salary in arrears, and declined to continue the performance of his duties unless the amount due him was paid in cash.

In this suit to' recover the compens'altdon which he claimed under the terms of the contract of employment, he was awarded the sum of $2,653.20 by the verdict of a jury. The appeal by the defendant from the judgment entered on the verdict presents for review seven rulings of the trial court, of which six relate to' the admissibility of evidence and one to- the rejection of several prayers. ¹⁰⁵ The first and second exceptions were taken because the plaintiff was permitted to mention positions held and salaries received by him 'before he entered the .defendant’s service. While the relevancy of this testimony is not apparent, we could ,not properly hold that its admission was reversible error under the conditions shown by the record. In opposition to the third exception the plaintiff was allowed to testify that he had never been charged by any one acting for the defendant .with having agreed unconditionally to accept partial payment of his salary in its preferred stock.

The principal controversy ,in the case was as to whether the plaintiff had made such ¡an agreement. • It was testified on 'behalf of the defendant that 'the plaintiff promised to take part of his overdue salary in preferred stock, in consideration of certain financial aid offered the defendant on condition that it should not he utilized for the payment of salaries then in arrears. .The testimony of the plaintiff, on the contrary, was that he never made an unqualified promise to that effect, but stated his willingness to make the proposed settlement under specified conditions which were not fulfilled. In view of the issue thus developed, it was permissible for the plaintiff, in support of his contention, to testify that no> one representing the defendant company had ever charged him with having entered unconditionally into the stock agreement which he disputes. The question in answer to which the plaintiff gave the testimony just noted is said to be objectionable in form. Ho such point appears to have been made at 'the trial, and we do not think that the question is properly subject to such a criticism.

The subject of the fourth exception was the refusal of the court to strike out testimony of the plaintiff to the effect that, after his dismissal by the defendant and his failure to secure a settlement of his salary claim, he brought this suit and left Baltimore to visit his family in 'Syracuse, Hew York, borrowing money to make the journey. The objection was to the portion of the statement which suggested the plaintiff’s financial straits at the time of his discharge. This was ¹⁰⁶ not responsive, and might properly have been stricken out if a specific motion had- been made for that purpose, but the effect of the