Shackleford v. Post Publishing Co.
THOMAS J. SHACKLEFORD v. POST PUBLISHING COMPANY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Milton H. Myrick (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
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.
Dissent — Myrick
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 *496voluntary 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.