Court Opinion

ID: 9834023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:14:20.083516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:10.992409
License: Public Domain

LOONEY, J.
A. F. Armstrong set up as the basis for this suit certain contracts with the White Sewing Machine Company, one in writing, under which plaintiff entered the service of defendant as salesman at Dallas on a commission basis, also verbal contracts, under which plaintiff served defendant as branch manager and salesman at Fort Worth and San Antonio, his compensation as manager, however, was alleged to be in addition to his commissions as salesman provided in the written contract, that is, he was to receive a flat commission of $7 for each sewing machine sold at these branch offices, whether the sale was made by himself or by one of ¡his salesmen ; that as manager and salesman he earned commissions aggregating the sum of $2,271.60, against which he admitted a credit of $748.85 in favor of defendant, leaving balance of $1,522.75, for which amount he prayed judgment.
Defendant answered by general denial and pleaded specially that plaintiff, in the dual capacity of salesman and manager, was governed by the terms of the written contract; that he was not to receive a flat commission of $7 on the sale of each machine, but . payment of same was contingent on the machine being paid for by the customers; that he was also required to bear the loss of commissions on all unperformed sales, whether made by himself or salesmen; that many sales failed of consummation, and it became necessary for defendant to repossess the machine, and the commissions incident thereto charged back to plaintiff, as provided by the contract, were more than sufficient in amount to offset plaintiff’s claim.
When the evidence closed, defendant moved ■for an instructed verdict; this was denied, and the case went to the jury on special issues, in answer to which the jury found that defendant did in fact,agree to pay plaintiff a flat commission of $7 on the sale of each machine made by salesmen under him regardless of whether or not the machine had to be repossessed, and, further, that these salesmen were accountable to defendant, and not to plaintiff. On these findings plaintiff asked for judgment in the sum of $1,-514.85; defendant also moved for judgment in its favor, but these motions were denied, and the court proceeded.to render judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $535.75..
On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in its favor; also in refusing after verdict to render judgment in its favor on the undisputed facts. Plaintiff cross-assigned error, on the refusal of the court to submit at his request issues in regard to the alleged agree-ntent of defendant to pay him a flat commission of $7 per machine sold by ¡him in person, whether repossessed or not; plaintiff also contends that, under the findings of the jury, and the undisputed facts, the court erred in not rendering judgment in his favor for the sum of $952.35.
 We do not think the court erred in refusing to instruct a verdict for defendant, because the evidence on all material issues was conflicting; nor do we think the court erred in refusing to render judgment in its favor after the verdict. However, we are of opinion that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the requested issues that would have settled the controversy, supported by evidence pro and con as to whether or not plaintiff, in addition to commissions claimed by him on sales made by salesmen, was also entitled to a flat commission of $7 on his personal sales and, because of this error, the case will be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We overrule defendant’s assignments and sustain the cross-assignmont of plaintiff just discussed, but in view of another trial, do not deem it prudent to protract the discussion or to comment upon the evidence. The costs of appeal is adjudged against appellant.
Reversed and remanded.