(DOWNLOAD) "Hill Cattle Corporation v. Killorn Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hill Cattle Corporation v. Killorn Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 25, 1927
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
Contracts ? Cancellation ? Master and Servant ? Contract Held One of Employment, not Partnership ? Breach ? Condonation ? Ratification ? Waiver ? Estoppel ? Written Contract ? Rule of Interpretation ? Parol Testimony ? Inadmissibility ? Directed Verdict ? When Proper. Contracts ? Master and Servant ? Contract Held One of Employment and not One of Partnership. 1. A contract between plaintiff livestock corporation and defendants, reciting that it was one of employment of defendants as managers of plaintiffs ranches for the compensation therein enumerated, consisting of a sum of money equal to one-half the proceeds of the sale - Page 328 of agricultural products, the increase in livestock, etc., after certain deductions, held one of employment and not of partnership. Same ? Cancellation ? Breach of Contract by Employee ? Directed Verdict. 2. Evidence in an action for the cancellation of a contract of employment of managers of ranches of a livestock corporation the purpose of which contract was the raising of livestock and sale of the increase and not speculation, indulged in by defendants, held sufficient to warrant direction of a verdict in favor of plaintiff, for breach of contract, defendants departure from its terms not having been justifiable by their claim that their employer profited by their operations. Same ? Ratification by Employer of Wrongful Acts of Employee ? Condonation ? What Does not Constitute. 3. Where the vice-president of plaintiff corporation with knowledge of defendants violation of their contract of employment as managers of its livestock business repeatedly urged them to comply with its terms to avoid its cancellation, without result, the claim that by failing to take action at once the objections to defendants conduct were waived and their acts ratified has no merit, condonation of prior breaches of a contract being always with the implied condition of future good conduct in compliance with its terms, and retention of an employee after commission of a breach of his contract not preventing the master from using it as a ground for his discharge if the breach is repeated. Same ? Breach of Contract by Employee ? Condonation ? Waiver ? Estoppel ? Question of Fact ? When of Law. 4. Where condonation, waiver or estoppel is relied upon as a defense, the issue is one of fact to be determined by the jury, except where the evidence is of such a character as to warrant the court in assuming its sufficiency or insufficiency as a matter of law. Same ? Cancellation ? Directed Verdict ? When Proper. 5. A directed verdict in favor of plaintiff in an action for cancellation of a contract of employment is proper where the evidence undisputably shows a substantial breach of its major terms, the fact that there was a conflict in the evidence as to minor matters not rendering the act of the court erroneous. Same ? Contract in Writing ? Rule of Interpretation. 6. In interpreting a written contract, the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible, and resort to extrinsic evidence in aid of interpretation may be had only when the contract appears on its face to be ambiguous or uncertain. Same ? Contract in Writing ? Interpretation ? When Parol Testimony Inadmissible. 7. Held, under the above rule (par. 6) that the clear meaning of a provision of a contract of employment of defendants as managers of ranch property to the effect that their compensation for a years services should be one-half of the total receipts from the sales of produce, the increase of livestock, etc., less certain deductions, in the light of other provisions, was that their one-half interest in the total receipts was chargeable with the total operating expenses in - Page 329 computing their compensation, and that therefore oral testimony as to prior or contemporaneous negotiations, merged in the contract, was properly excluded.