Continental Baking Powder Co. v. Stoner
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal, from Madison Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake. Action by A. L. Stoner against the Continental Baking Powder Company, to recover a difference in salary. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Counsel discuss the facts in the case and conclude that the court erred in giving charge 1 requested by appellee, and in refusing charges 2 and 3 requested by appellant, but cite no authority in support thereof.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from Madison Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake. Action by A. L. Stoner against the Continental Baking Powder Company, to recover a difference in salary. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Counsel discuss the facts in the case and conclude that the court erred in giving charge 1 requested by appellee, and in refusing charges 2 and 3 requested by appellant, but cite no authority in support thereof. Under the circumstances shown in this case the defendant is estopped to -take refuge in the defense sought to be interposed here. —Syndicate I. Go. v. GatcMngs, 16 So.…
1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.
Assignments of error in this case are based upon the giving and refusal of certain special instructions to the jury. For a proper understanding of them it may be stated that Cummins was defendant’s general manager with headquarters at Nashville, Tenn. McCarv was its general manager for Alabama, directing *306subordinate agents, but himself under the direction of Cummins. Plaintiff was employed in Alabama, as a demonstrator at a salary of $34 a month; that is, he ad vertised defendant’s goods, a baking powder, and sold them directly to consumers. McCary had employed plaintiff in the beginning.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bronson's v. ChappellSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Louisville Coffin Co. v. StokesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Fanning v. CobbMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- McCray v. Sapulpa Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924