Story Case

Phillip Morris was engaged by the Farmers' Supply Company, of Chicago, Illinois, to open up and manage a branch business in La Porte, Indiana. Morris, in consideration of a certain per cent commission on all sales made, agreed to devote his entire time and attention to business. The company agreed to engage him for two years, beginning January, 1912. During the busy Apson of 1913, Morris closed up the store and went on a hunting trip for a week's time. When the supply company learned of this, they immediately sent Robert Semmes down to take charge of the business, and when Morris returned, he was notified that he was discharged. He, thereupon, brought an action against the company for wrongful dismissal. The company-contended that he had abandoned his agency. What should be the decision of the Court?

Ruling Court Case. Salkey Vs. Leopold

Asher F. Leopold engaged Samuel Salkey to act as superintendent and manager of the manufacturing department of Leopold's firm. Asher was engaged for a period of three years at $300 per month. He began work on December 1, 1874, and continued to render services until January 12, 1875. On that day he was arrested by a United States marshal upon some charge, and lodged in jail. He was not guilty as suspected, and was discharged from the jail on the 25th of the same month and year. He reported to Leopold for work, but, in the meantime, Leopold had engaged another man to take charge of the work. Salkey, thereupon, brought this action against Leopold for wrongful dismissal from his employment.

Leopold contended that his absence, whether caused rightfully or wrongfully, was an abandonment of the contract. He showed that his absence from the factory was a serious loss to the business, and that they were compelled to get someone to do his work.

Decision: When an agent is absent from his work for an unreasonable length of time, the principal is justified in withdrawing the authority of such an agent and employing another, and it is not material that his absence is caused by some third person, or even by his own sickness. What constitutes an unreasonable length of time will depend upon the nature of the business and the circumstances of a given case. The Court was of opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, the absence of Salkey was unreasonable.

Mr. Justice Schofield, who delivered the opinion of the Court, said in part: "Where neither party is at fault, the absence of the servant from the master's employ, without his consent, (by whatever cause occasioned), for an unreasonable length of time, constitutes an abandonment. What is an unreasonable length of time, depends upon the nature and necessity of the business in which the servant is employed. Under the facts here proved, a much shorter time than that during which Salkey was in jail, might, in our opinion, be regarded as unreasonable. Under different circumstances, absence for a much greater length of time might furnish no cause for abandonment; the question being, does the delay so affect the interests of the master that the performance of the residue of the contract by the servant would be a thing different in substance from what the master contracted for."

Judgment was given for Leopold.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

When a principal engages an agent to do something for him, he intends and expects - and rightly - that the agent will substantially perform his duties as agreed upon. If the agent wilfully neglects, or absents himself from, his duties, the principal certainly may consider such neglect and absence as an abandonment of the contract of employment, and may put another in his place. But even if the agent is compelled to absent himself from his employment through fault of some third person, or because of illness, nevertheless, the master is entitled to treat such unreasonable absence or neglect of duty as an abandonment of the contract. In considering what constitutes an unreasonable absence from the employment, no definite rule can be laid down; it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

In the Story Case, Morris wilfully neglected his duties as agent, and, under the circumstances, the principal was clearly justified in treating his conduct as an abandonment of the agency, and in substituting another agent in his place. Consequently, Morris is entitled to recover nothing by way of damages.