Wiltbank v. Automatic Amusement Machine Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wiltbank v. Automatic Amusement Machine Co.

54 A. 558, 69 N.J.L. 236, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 198

DecidedFebruary 24, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A. 558 (Wiltbank v. Automatic Amusement Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wiltbank v. Automatic Amusement Machine Co., 54 A. 558, 69 N.J.L. 236, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 198 (N.J. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for services rendered by Kim as manager of the defendant company. The jury rendered a verdict in his favor for $450.

It appeared in evidence in the cause that the plaintiff was one of the incorporators of the defendant company, and that at or about the .time of the organization of the company he and his fellow-incorporators entered into a written contract, by the provisions of which the parties thereto agreed that, in consideration of their respective services to each other and the company, and in consideration of $1 paid by each to the other of them, so much of the company’s stock as was left after paying with it for certain patent-rights and property acquired by the company should be divided among them.

The ground upon which a new trial is asked by the defendant is that, by the terms of this agreement, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover compensation for his services as manager of the company, except by the allotment of his share of the company’s stock to him.

The services referred .to in the written contract were those rendered by the parties prior to, and at the time of, the incorporation of the company, and such services as should afterwards be rendered by them as directors. This did not include services to be afterward rendered by.any of the parties to the agreement as employes of the company.

The rule to show cause should be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for services rendered by Kim as manager of the defendant company. The jury rendered a verdict in his favor for $450.

It appeared in evidence in the cause that the plaintiff was one of the incorporators of the defendant company, and that at or about the .time of the organization of the company he and his fellow-incorporators entered into a written contract, by the provisions of which the parties thereto agreed that, in consideration of their respective services to each other and the company, and in consideration of $1 paid by each to the other of them, so much of the company’s stock as was left after paying with it for certain patent-rights and property acquired by the company should be divided among them.

The ground upon which a new trial is asked by the defendant is that, by the terms of this agreement, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover compensation for his services as manager of the company, except by the allotment of his share of the company’s stock to him.

The services referred .to in the written contract were those rendered by the parties prior to, and at the time of, the incorporation of the company, and such services as should afterwards be rendered by them as directors. This did not include services to be afterward rendered by.any of the parties to the agreement as employes of the company.

The rule to show cause should be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A. 558, 69 N.J.L. 236, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiltbank-v-automatic-amusement-machine-co-nj-1903.