Boyd v. E. F. Houghton & Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 76, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment'of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 1056, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William J. Boyd v. E. F. Houghton & Co. Assumpsit for salary. Before McCullen, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,144.67. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 76, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment'of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 1056, on verdict for plaintiff in case of William J. Boyd v. E. F. Houghton & Co. Assumpsit for salary. Before McCullen, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $2,144.67. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were (1) refusal of binding instructions for defendant and (2) refusal of judgment n. o. v., on account of variance.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Schaffer,
From the year 1914, until the time of his discharge, in August, 1918, plaintiff was employed as a.sales manager by defendant. In July of the latter year, a new arrangement was entered into between him and Ms employer, as a result of which his minimum compensation was fixed at $5,000 per year. On August 5,1918, he was discharged from his employment and, on September 26th following, brought suit to recover the sum of $4,527.33, the unpaid balance of his salary for the year. He recovered a verdict for $2,144.67, upon which judgment was entered. The defendant has…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Kehres v. StuempfleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Saxman v. McCormickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
- Hanley v. WaxmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Sautter v. RowlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Williams v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.