From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heaman v. Rowell Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 1, 1933
261 N.Y. 229 (N.Y. 1933)

Summary

stating that a corporate executive's granted general powers do not confer the authority to enter into employment contracts for life

Summary of this case from COX ENTERPRISES, INC. v. NEWS-JOURNAL CORPORATION

Opinion

Argued January 26, 1933

Decided March 1, 1933

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Bayard J. Stedman and George W. Watson for appellant.

Everest A. Judd for respondent.


The action is one to recover damages for an alleged wrongful discharge of plaintiff from the employ of defendant.

The question is whether an allegation in the complaint that an oral contract of employment for life by a corporation was made through its president, can be upheld as sufficient in law. That a contract for employment for life if authorized by the corporation and based on an adequate consideration, will ordinarily be sustained admits of no dispute. ( Riefkin v. DuPont DeNemours Co., 290 Fed. Rep. 286; Arentz v. Morse Dry Dock Repair Co., 249 N.Y. 439, 444.) Alleged contracts of life employment are, however, so unusual as to have been, with rare exceptions, condemned by the courts as unreasonable and unauthorized. The president or other executive officer of a corporation has no authority as such to make a contract that one should remain in the corporate employ for life even under a general power "to appoint, remove and fix the compensation of employees." That any board of directors or other persons responsible for the management of a corporation should give such unusual power to an executive officer cannot be implied. Plain language of the managing board, clearly showing that such was the intention of the corporation, coupled with power actually or impliedly vested in the corporation itself, must be found to justify such a hiring. ( Carney v. New York Life Ins. Co., 19 App. Div. 160, 161; affd., 162 N.Y. 453; Alexander v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 233 N.Y. 300; Clifford v. Firemen's Mut. Benefit Assn., 232 App. Div. 260; affd., 259 N.Y. 547; Davidson v. Library Bureau, 234 App. Div. 47; modified, 259 N.Y. 654.)

The complaint does not suggest that the board of trustees of the defendant corporation ever authorized or ratified the contract set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff rests entirely on the affirmative allegation that the contract was made "through the president." If the plaintiff proved the facts alleged and nothing more he would fail to establish a cause of action. He would establish an unauthorized contract of hiring, not enforceable against the corporation.

It was not necessary to allege that the hiring was "through the president." Although it was unnecessary, it was not improper ( Calvo v. Davies, 73 N.Y. 211), and the whole pleading must be considered in determining whether it states a cause of action.

The order should be reversed and the second cause of action set forth in the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, and the question certified answered in the negative.

CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

Heaman v. Rowell Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 1, 1933
261 N.Y. 229 (N.Y. 1933)

stating that a corporate executive's granted general powers do not confer the authority to enter into employment contracts for life

Summary of this case from COX ENTERPRISES, INC. v. NEWS-JOURNAL CORPORATION
Case details for

Heaman v. Rowell Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM A. HEAMAN, Respondent, v. E.N. ROWELL CO., INC., Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 1, 1933

Citations

261 N.Y. 229 (N.Y. 1933)
185 N.E. 83

Citing Cases

Lee v. Jenkins Brothers

Contra: Edwards v. Keller, Tex.Civ. App. 1939, 133 S.W.2d 823; Pedicord v. Elm Grove Mining Co., 1931, 110 W.…

Burke v. Bevona

The Court of Appeals cited with approval the "New York rule" that a contract for lifetime employment is…