Langdon v. Langdon

California Court of Appeal Sep 29, 1941 No. Civ. 13031Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the existence of a valid oral agreement to pay a bonus and that the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations because the plaintiff delayed collection at the defendant's request. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that the defendant could have produced with reasonable diligence.

Issues

Whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding of a valid oral agreement to pay a bonus.
Whether the action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing an amendment to the bill of particulars.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Viewed in the light favorable to plaintiff, the evidence supports the finding of the trial court as to the existence of a valid oral agreement.”

“Where the delay in commencing action is induced by the conduct of the offending party it cannot be availed of by him as a defense.”

“New trials on the grounds of newly discovered evidence are not favored and even if the showing is apparently a strong one much depends upon the sound discretion of the trial judge.”

[30]

WOOD, J.

This action was commenced on February 26, 1940, for the recovery of a sum alleged to be due plaintiff under the terms of an oral contract by which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $100 in addition to hourly wages for each house painted by plaintiff. Defendant has appealed from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the sum of $4200.

Plaintiff is the father of defendant. In December, 1936, defendant entered the business of buying vacant lots and building houses on them for sale. Plaintiff and defendant had worked together as house painters. In March, 1937, plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with defendant under the terms of which plaintiff was to paint all houses then under construction or thereafter to be constructed by defendant and defendant was to pay plaintiff an hourly wage for his work and in addition a bonus of $100 for each house painted. Within a year after the agreement was made plaintiff demanded the $100 bonus for each house which he had painted but was informed that defendant could not pay the bonus at that time. At defendant’s request plaintiff agreed to wait for his bonus until after defendant had made a good start in the building business. At that time and on several occasions thereafter defendant stated that it would require about three years

to get

a good start in the building business. Plaintiff continued to work for defendant for approximately two and one-half years until he was discharged in July, 1939, following his demand and defendant’s refusal to pay the bonus. Prior to his discharge plaintiff had painted a total of 50 houses, upon 42 of which the bonus of $100 per house was proved to be due and unpaid at the time of trial.

It is contended by defendant that the trial court’s finding that there was a binding oral agreement between the parties to pay plaintiff a bonus of $100 for painting each house is not supported by the evidence. Plaintiff testified that in March, 1937, after they had finished constructing a house, he told defendant that he was through, that he did not intend to continue working for daily wages but was going to get his own painting contracts. Defendant then requested plaintiff not to leave him and stated: “I will give you $100.00 on every house besides the painting, and if I do well and can give you more, I will.” Plaintiff replied, “O. K., son; if that is satisfactory with you, it is all right

Langdon v. Langdon

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief