Case ID: mass_277/html/0025-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sanderson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael I. Raysel vs. C. Crawford Hollidge.
    Hampshire.
    September 16, 1931.
    October 1, 1931.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Crosby, Carroll, Sanderson, & Field, JJ.
    
      Agency, Scope of authority.
    Evidence, at the trial of an action for breach of a contract whereby the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as assistant merchandiseman in the defendant’s store for a period of a year, that the defendant stated to the plaintiff that he was to take all orders from the general merchandise manager and that whatever the manager said was final; and that during the period of the plaintiff’s employment he received orders from the manager, from the defendant and the defendant’s son, warranted a finding that the defendant had held out the manager to the plaintiff as having authority from the defendant to terminate the contract by discharging the plaintiff; and, there being further evidence that the manager, at a time when the year of the plaintiff’s employment had not yet expired, stated to him that he was “through” and that he could not go on with his work, it was proper for the trial judge to refuse to rule that the plaintiff was not entitled to rely on such statement by the, manager; and a verdict for the plaintiff, was warranted.
    Contract. Writ dated December 17, 1929.
    The action was tried in the Superior Court before W. A. Burns, J. Material evidence and rulings requested by the defendant and refused by the judge are stated in the opinion. The judge denied a motion by the defendant that a verdict be ordered in his favor. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,651.68. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      K. D. Johnson, (F. B. Wallis with him,) for the defendant.
    
      D. D. O'Brien, for the plaintiff.
   Sanderson, J.

The important question in the case is whether the statement of the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of the employment could be found to be a holding out of Billings to the plaintiff as having authority to terminate the contract of employment by discharging him. The direction to' the plaintiff to take all orders from Billings, and the further statement that whatever Billings said was final could be found to be sufficiently comprehensive to justify the plaintiff, acting as a reasonable man, in believing that Billings had authority to terminate the contract by discharging him. The nature of the general duties of Billings, the unusual nature of an order amounting to a breach of contract and the other circumstances were not such as to justify the judge in ruling that Billings had not been held out as having such authority.

No error appears in the rulings to which exceptions were saved.

Exceptions overruled.