Welsby v. Cheliabinsk Tractor Plant

Michigan Supreme Court

Welsby v. Cheliabinsk Tractor Plant

241 N.W. 835, 257 Mich. 683, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 894

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1932

DocketDocket No. 56, Calendar No. 36,104.

StatusPublished

This text of 241 N.W. 835 (Welsby v. Cheliabinsk Tractor Plant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Welsby v. Cheliabinsk Tractor Plant, 241 N.W. 835, 257 Mich. 683, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 894 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

In a trial without a jury plaintiff had judgment for damages for breach of a contract of employment. Defendant has appealed.

The preponderance of the evidence is that plaintiff was employed by defendant by its agent Noble, by oral agreement, for the period of 11 months at $300 per month. She was discharged without cause.

The chief question is of Noble’s authority to make the agreement. His duty in chief was to gather an organization to represent defendant. The wéight *684 of the evidence is that he did employ persons under certain contracts of employment for a fixed period of time. There is testimony pro and con respecting his authority, but we agree with the trial judge in holding authority to make the contract in question. It is argued that the court erred in ruling on offered testimony of Noble respecting his authority. If it be conceded that Noble would have testified precisely as defendant expected, it would not change the result. We find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Buteel, JJ., concurred.

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

Clark, C. J.

In a trial without a jury plaintiff had judgment for damages for breach of a contract of employment. Defendant has appealed.

The preponderance of the evidence is that plaintiff was employed by defendant by its agent Noble, by oral agreement, for the period of 11 months at $300 per month. She was discharged without cause.

The chief question is of Noble’s authority to make the agreement. His duty in chief was to gather an organization to represent defendant. The wéight *684 of the evidence is that he did employ persons under certain contracts of employment for a fixed period of time. There is testimony pro and con respecting his authority, but we agree with the trial judge in holding authority to make the contract in question. It is argued that the court erred in ruling on offered testimony of Noble respecting his authority. If it be conceded that Noble would have testified precisely as defendant expected, it would not change the result. We find no reversible error.

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Buteel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W. 835, 257 Mich. 683, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welsby-v-cheliabinsk-tractor-plant-mich-1932.