Case Name: WELSBY v. CHELIABINSK TRACTOR PLANT
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1932-04-04
Citations: 257 Mich. 683
Docket Number: Docket No. 56, Calendar No. 36,104
Parties: WELSBY v. CHELIABINSK TRACTOR PLANT.
Judges: McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Buteel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 257
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
WELSBY v. CHELIABINSK TRACTOR PLANT.
1. Master and Servant — -Principal and Agent — Breach op- Contract.
In action for breach of contract of employment, court’s finding of authority in defendant’s agent to make contract in question, held, justified, on record.
2. Appeal and Error — Evidence—Harmless Error.
Exclusion of certain testimony was not reversible error, where, if testimony had been received, it would not have changed result.
Appeal from Wayne; Dunham (Major L.), J., presiding.
Submitted January 6, 1932.
(Docket No. 56, Calendar No. 36,104.)
Decided April 4, 1932.
Assumpsit by May B. Welsby against Cheliabinsk Tractor Plant, a foreign corporation, for breach of contract of employment. ■ Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Peter P. Boyle, for plaintiff.
Maurice Sugar, for defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, C. J.
In a trial without a jury plaintiff had judgment for damages for breach of a contract of employment. Defendant has appealed.
The preponderance of the evidence is that plaintiff was employed by defendant by its agent Noble, by oral agreement, for the period of 11 months at $300 per month. She was discharged without cause.
The chief question is of Noble's authority to make the agreement. His duty in chief was to gather an organization to represent defendant. The wéight of the evidence is that he did employ persons under certain contracts of employment for a fixed period of time. There is testimony pro and con respecting his authority, but we agree with the trial judge in holding authority to make the contract in question. It is argued that the court erred in ruling on offered testimony of Noble respecting his authority. If it be conceded that Noble would have testified precisely as defendant expected, it would not change the result. We find no reversible error.
Affirmed.
McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Buteel, JJ., concurred.