Wildman v. Moe-Bridges Co.

PRESTON, J.

Defendant, during the years 1923, 1924 and 1925, was engaged in the manufacture and sale of household fixtures and hardware, with home office at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and plaintiff was sales manager for its western division, or San Francisco branch, under contract to receive a stipulated monthly compensation, plus ten per cent of the net profits of the branch, payable at the end of each year. In the matter of arriving at a satisfactory cost basis for merchandise sold by the branch, upon which might be computed the 10 per cent net profit, there soon arose a controversy of long duration, which culminated in the bringing of this action by plaintiff to recover sums alleged to be due him from defendant.

The sole issue in the cause was clearly defined by a stipulation of the parties which provided that if the court found, in accordance with the contention of plaintiff, that the profits of said branch, during said period and under the agreement between the parties, should be based upon the factory cost of the merchandise sold by the branch, excluding from said factory cost specified items of indirect, general and administrative expenses of the principal, central, main offices of defendant at Milwaukee, not incurred by the branch (hereinafter referred to as “items”), then, according to a stipu

[500]

lated computation, there would he due and payable to plaintiff upon said basis the sum of $6,811.50, for which he should have judgment, with interest thereon. The stipulation further provided that if the court found, in accordance with the contention of defendant and under the agreement between the parties, that the profits of said branch should be based upon the factory cost of the merchandise sold by the branch during said period and that said items should be included in or added to said factory cost, or included in the deductions from the gross profits of the branch, then, according to a stipulated computation, defendant would be entitled to judgment dismissing the action.

Upon the trial various documents and correspondence between the parties over the period involved were introduced in evidence; plaintiff testified and defendant offered depositions taken prior to trial, together with additional documentary evidence. On the above issue, the court found that in April, 1923, defendant entered into an oral agreement with plaintiff, thereafter partially reduced to "writing by exchange of letters between the parties, under which the profits of said branch were to be based on the prime factory cost of merchandise sold by it, excluding therefrom said items. Judgment in accordance with this finding, and following the terms of said stipulation, was thereafter entered for plaintiff and defendant appealed.