Horne v. KENOSHA LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMartin-, J.
The first question presented is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that a *499contract existed between the parties whereby plaintiff was to receive a three per cent commission on the gross parts sales.
As pointed out by the learned trial court, the testimony is in sharp conflict and the jury had the right to believe either party. Plaintiff testified that such an agreement had been reached on the day he was hired. His testimony that by its terms three per cent on gross parts sales was payable annually was corroborated by Wassick. The testimony of Mr. Clausen,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. Oneida Knitting Mills, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
3Cited by4 opinions
- Marek v. Knab Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Dalton v. State Property and Buildings CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1957
- Dalton v. State Property and Buildings CommissionCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1957
- Horne v. KENOSHA LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1953