Shackleford v. Post Publishing Co.

The Court: The Court below found the employment of plaintiff by defendant as its Secretary, the rendition of services under such employment, and the value of such services. The Court also found that the plaintiff had not undertaken or agreed that the services should be rendered by him gratuitously. Judgment went for plaintiff.

It seems to us that there is a substantial conflict in the evidence as to whether the services were to be rendered gratuitously; and, in view of the rule established here, we will not interfere with the findings.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Myrick, J., dissenting: I am of the opinion that the testimony shows that plaintiff by his action permitted the defendant to receive his services as Secretary, and to rest under the belief that such services were being rendered gratuitously; and that he in rendering those services, expected or hoped (without any agreement to that end), to receive some compensation or equivalent by a [496]voluntary apportionment to himself of some shares of the stock of defendant. "Under such circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to recover as for services rendered. The finding of the Court below is not sustained by the evidence.