Wetmore v. C. A. Wetmore Co.
Before: Vanclief
Synopsis
Construction of Contract—Consideration—Services of Superintendent of Corporation—Action by Assignee in Insolvency.—A contract between a corporation and its superintendent that his personal supervision was to be given to the business of the company in consideration of the purchase of thirteen hundred shares of its stock by a third person, and the payment of ten thousand dollars therefor, is to be construed as precluding any other consideration for the services; and the assignee in insolvency of the superintendent can recover nothing for any services rendered by him under such contract.
Vanclief, C. C. A. Wetmore having been adjudged an insolvent debtor, the plaintiff, Clarence J. Wetmore, was elected assignee, and to him all the insolvent’s property was assigned in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvent Act of 1880.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that, at the time of the assignment, the defendant was indebted to said insolvent in the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars for personal services of the latter from July 16 until December 21, 1891, in superintending defendant’s winery and manufacturing wines; that such indebtedness passed to plaintiff by said assignment and has not been paid, and prays that he may have judgment against the defendant for said sum.
The answer of the defendant denies that defendant employed Charles A. Wetmore to perform any services whatever, and denies that he performed any services [322]for the defendant, except such as he performed under and in accordance with the following written contract:
“San Francisco, July 16, 1891.
“In consideration of the purchase of thirteen hundred shares of the capital stock of the C. A. Wetmore Company by C. K. Kirby, and the payment of ten thousand dollars by said Kirby, I hereby agree to give my personal supervision to the business of the company, attend to the selection of the materials, the making,blending, bottling, and selling of all wines connected with the wine business for and during the full period of five years from the date hereof, for the sole benefit of said company, and that I will not engage in or use any of my skill or knowledge in the wine business, in any form whatever, for the benefit of myself or any party or parties other than the above-named company, or their successors, during the full period of the time above mentioned.
“(Signed) Charles A. Wetmore.
“Witness: Maurice Clark.”
(Indorsed across the face of original as follows):
“ Accepted by the 0. A. Wetmore Company by C. K. Kirby, business manager.
“ This is a true copy.
“Maurice Clark.”
Admits that Charles A. Wetmore performed such services as required of him by said contract until December 21, 1891, and alleges that on said twenty-first day of December, 1891, said contract was canceled and annulled, and that each party thereto was then released from all obligations thereby incurred.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)