Duncan v. Cone Inc.

85 S.E. 203, 16 Ga. App. 253, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 572
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 4, 1915·No. 5778·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Wade, J.*

1. Where, during the pendency of a term of employment at a stipulated salary per month, a voluntary agreement, entirely apart from the contract of employment, is made hy the employer, to pay the employee as a bonus some indefinite and undetermined share in the profits of the business, “contingent on continuous and satisfactory services,” and this voluntary agreement is not supported hy any change in place, hours, character of employment, or other consideration, the agreement is not enforceable at law, as it is nudum pactum, and the grant of the bonus so promised is altogether optional because dependent upon whether the services of the employee are “satisfactory” to the employer, and of this he is in such a case the sole judge. Davis v. Morgan, 117 Ga. 504 (43 S. E. 732, 61 L. R. A. 148, 97 Am. St. R. 171); Phinizy v. Bush, 129 Ga, 479-491 (59 S. E. 291); Purcell v. Armour Packing Co., 4 Ga. App. 253-257 (61 S. E. 138); Worth v. Daniel, 1 Ga. App. 15-17 (57 S. E. 898); Saul v. Southern Seating &c. Co., 6 Ga. App. 843-847 (65 S. E. 1065). “Where one undertakes to perform for another service or labor for a given sum, any amount paid in excess of that sum, not based upon a new consideration, is a mere gratuity.” Willingham Sash &c. Co. v. Drew, 117 Ga. 850 (45 S. E. 237). “Such a promise, made at the beginning of the employment, is enforceable, though it would not be if made pending the term or after the performance was completed” (Phillips v. Hudson, 9 Ga. App, 779-781, 72 S. E. 178); and this is true even where the promise is definite. In this ease no definite promise was ever made, and the conditional promise was made during the employment and without any additional consideration to support it.

2. There was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Duncan v. Cone Inc., 85 S.E. 203, 16 Ga. App. 253, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 572 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

85 S.E. 203 (Duncan v. Cone Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dinnan v. Totis
283 S.E.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Management Search, Inc. v. Morgan
222 S.E.2d 154 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Hurd v. Jo-Do, Inc.
188 S.E.2d 146 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Monllor & Boscio, Sucrs., Inc. v. Industrial Commission
89 P.R. 389 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1963)
Monllor & Boscio, Sucrs., Inc. v. Comisión Industrial
89 P.R. Dec. 397 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1963)
Judd v. Wasie
211 F.2d 826 (Eighth Circuit, 1954)
Vincent v. Palmer
19 A.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1941)
Wellington v. Con P. Curran Printing Co.
268 S.W. 396 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1925)
Scott v. J. F. Duthie & Co.
216 P. 853 (Washington Supreme Court, 1923)
Russell v. H. W. Johns-Manville Co.
200 P. 668 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Doom v. Studebaker Corp. of America
97 S.E. 106 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)