Court Opinion

ID: 9559158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:23:35.491057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:53.007919
License: Public Domain

SHINN, J.
I concur in the foregoing opinion, but deem it advisable to point out that the defense to the action lacks merit for a reason other than the one stated in the opinion. The amount of the judgment represented plaintiff’s percentage of defendant’s earnings under his contract with Uni*368versal, which, as extended under the options, ran for seven years and terminated October 15, 1943. So far as can be determined from the statement of facts, there was no occasion for plaintiff to render any services in connection with that contract subsequent to the date of its execution. If defendant’s compensation came to him from Universal under the original contract and as the result of services which had •been fully performed by plaintiff, as would appear to be the case, the latter was entitled to the agreed percentage and defendant could not, by terminating the contract, escape liability for commissions which plaintiff had already earned.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 25, 1946.