Legal Opinion

Barr v. Clinton Bridge Works

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 15, 1917PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Clinton District Court'. — M. F. Donegan, Judge. ' Action at law to recover upon contract for services rendered. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

1Opinion of the CourtWeaver, J.

The. plaintiff alleges that the Clinton Bridge Works and the Clinton Bridge & Iron Works are different names for one and the same corporation; that, on December 24, 1910, he made an oral contract with said cor*704poration whereby he entered into service as a salesman for j the period of 5 years at an annual salary of $6,000, payable j in monthly installments of $300 each, and the remainder of $2,400 at the end of each year. He further alleges that he entered upon said service under said contract and continued therein until December 1, 1913, when, by reason of changes in business conditions, the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Duluth Chamber of Commerce v. KnowltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  2. Kistler v. Indianapolis & St. Louis RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  4. Walston v. F. D. Calkins Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1903
  5. Wilson v. Palo Alto CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1884

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Ginoza Ex Rel. Ginoza v. TakaiHawaii Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Kellogg v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
  3. Holm v. HansenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
  4. Mattson v. BryanIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Lawyer v. StansellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API