
    Joseph A. Bradburn, Appellant, v. The Solvay Process Company, Respondent.
    
      Written contract by a corporation to pay a percentage of its dividends to an employee — effect of a subsequent increase of its stock—the question of intent is for the jury.
    
    After a corporation had agreed in writing with one of its employees upon a compensation to be paid for his services, in addition to a fixed, salary, of “three percent (8 %) upon such salary for every one per cent (1 f¡ in, excess of ten per ceht <10 %) which shall be paid as dividends to the stockholders,” the corporation. doubled its' corporate stock and immediately thereafter declared a 100 per cent dividend and soon thereafter a 80 per cent, dividend.
    
      JSeld, that, in the absence of evidence in the language of the contract as to the intent of the parties in making it, a question was presented for the consideration of the jury as to whether ttie employee’s compensation could he affected ■ by such increase of capital.
    Green and Follett, JJ., dissented.
    Appeal by the plaintiff, Joseph A? Bradburn, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on' the 31st day of October^ 1896, upon, a nonsuit granted by the court after a trial at the Onondaga Trial Term. . -
    
      The defendant is a domestic corporation which was organized in the year 1878, with a capital of $1,500,000, and is engaged in manufacturing ■ and selling a product known as “ soda ash,” at Geddes, or Solvay, in the county of Onondaga, in this State.
    On the 17th day of September, 1889, the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant, by the terms of which the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff as an assistant chemist at a monthly salary of $100. This contract contained several covenants and provisions, among which was the following:
    “ 6. The Solvay Process Company, in consideration of the covenants herein entered into by the party of the second part, agrees to establish a method of participation in profits by certain of its officers and enrployees, and in particular by the said party of the second part, on the following terms :
    “ Those who take part in the participation shall be officers of the company, the heads of the departments and such others as the trustees shall, from time to time, by vote admit.
    “The distribution shall be calculated upon the salary of each participant, and shall be three per cent (3$) upon such salary for every one per cent (1$) in excess of ten per cent (10$) which shall be paid as dividends to the stockholders. This participation shall be payable in the month of February of each year for the year ending the preceding 31st of December.”
    It also juovided that the plaintiff should give four weeks’ notice of his intention to leave the employ of the defendant, and that the defendant might discharge the plaintiff upon payment to him of four weeks’ wages. The salary of the plaintiff was thereafter increased from time to time until 1892, when it amounted to $2,000 per year; and for the years 1890 and 1891 a dividend of thirty per cent was declared upon the capital stock of the defendant, in which the plaintiff participated in the manner and to the extent stipulated in the written contract.
    On the 6th day of April, 1892, the capital stock of the defendant was increased from $1,500,000 to $3,000,000. Immediately thereafter a stock dividend of 100 per cent was declared, and during the same year a further dividend of 30 per cent upon the capital stock as thus increased was also declared. In each of the years 1893 and 1894 a further dividend of 15 per cent was in like manner declared, in which the plaintiff participated upon the same basis as in previous dividends, but without any knowledge^ as he testifies, that the capital stock had been increased.
    The plaintiff remained in the employ of the defendant under the written contract until the latter part of May, 1894, when he was discharged, and the four weeks’ additional salary contemplated by the contract was paid him.
    
      Walter W. Magee, for the appellant.
    
      E. J. Page, for the respondent.
   Adams, J.:

The plaintiff rests his right to recover in this action upon the contention that the contract entered into between him and the defendant contemplated that the dividends in which he was to participate as a part of the consideration for the services rendered by him, were to be computed upon the basis of the amount of capital stock which existed at the time the.contract was executed, viz.,, $1,500,000; and that as a consequence of the doubling of the capital stock he wTas deprived of one-half of the interest in the dividends thereafter declared, to which he was entitled under the terms of the contract, as they were understood by the parties when the contract was executed. '

It was conceded upon the trial that, if the plaintiff was' correct in his contention, the amount owing him by the defendant was the sum of $3,200.01; but that, on the other hand, if it was within the Contemplation of these parties* when entering into this contract that the plaintiff’s interests in the profits of the company might be diminished by an increase of the capital stock, he had received all he was entitled to. The single question, therefore, which was sought to be litigated in the action was virtually whether, after entering into the contract with the plaintiff, by the terms of which the latter was to receive by way of compensation for services a certain share of the profits of the corporation, the defendant could, without the plaintiff’s consent, increase its capital stock and thereby deprive him of a certain proportion. of the profits which he would have been entitled to receive had the capital remained: at the same amount as when the contract was entered into.

This question was decided adversely to the plaintiff’s contention by the trial court, which at the close of the evidence directed a nonsuit.

It is insisted that, in the disposition thus made of the case, the learned trial court was in error, and that a question of fact as to the intention and understanding of the parties respecting the basis upon which the plaintiff was to participate in the profits of the defendant was presented which should have been submitted to the jury •—• in which contention we are inclined to concur.

It is to be observed that the contract is silent respecting the amount of the capital upon which the plaintiff’s share in the profits is to be determined, no allusion to that subject being made further than that it shall be computed at the rate of three per cent of his salary for every one per cent in. excess of ten per cent of profits divided. It is apparent, therefore, that if a dividend of twenty per cent were to be declared, the plaintiff would be entitled to receive an increase in his salary which would be equivalent to $600 per year ; and it is likewise apparent that if the capital stock were to be doubled, his interest- in the dividend would necessarily be diminished just one-half. For earnings which would justify a dividend of twenty per cent upon $1,500,000 would, of course, warrant a dividend of only ten per cent upon $3,000,000.

It is undoubtedly a fact that the stockholders of the defendant had the right at any time to increase the capital stock of the company if' steps to accomplish that object were taken in conformity to the requirements of the statute. And it is equally certain that such right could not be affected by any contract which its officers might have executed. ¡Nevertheless the question still remains as to the understanding and intent with which the parties entered into this particular contract.

It is not to be denied that if such intent could be fairly ascertained from the language of the contract itself, the question would necessarily resolve itself into one of law for the court to determine-; but, in the absence of such a guide, we think a question of fact arises which must be determined like any other question of fact by the acts of the parties as well as by the circumstances and probar bilities of the case.

We conclude, therefore, that the issue is one which should have been submitted to the jury, and that, for the failure of the court so to do, a new trial should be granted.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Hardin, P. J., and Ward, J., concurred; Oreen and Follett, J J., dissented.

Green, J. (dissenting):

Upon the trial the plaintiff offered to ¡Drove that, by a verbal agreement or understanding with an officer or officers of the company, the corporation obligated itself not to increase its capital stock during the continuance' of its contract with plaintiff. The corporation having doubled its capital stock, plaintiff now insists that he, is entitled to a percentage in the profits on the basis of the original capital stock of $1,500,000, and that all dividends declared after such increase of capital stock must be doubled in estimating his percentage of the profits.

This is an important element to interpolate into a formal, written contract made with a corporation, by means of parol evidence of a conversation between the plaintiff and some of the officers of the corporation.

The contract, as written, executed and authenticated,, evidenced the corporate assent and agreement to the terms and provisions therein expressed, while the prior verbal promises of some of its officers appear to be no more than individual promises, which are excluded from the formal contract entered into by the corporation itself. The evidence that a certain officer or officers of the corporation'promised that the capital stock should remain the same during the time of plaintiff’s indefinite agreement, would be of no avail to charge the corporation, without some proof of the assent of the stockholders of the corporation.

The Contract being authenticated by the signatures • of the treasurer and secretary and by the corporate seal, we must assume that this was done by the direction or authority of the board of directors or trustees,, and that this was the only contract entered into, by the corporate body. Undoubtedly a statement of the amount of the . capital stock was intentionally omitted from the contract as written, so as to avoid any contention of the character raised here. It was omitted from the original instrument, and we must assume that it was intentionally excluded, or that the corporation refused its assent to the stipulation.

The purpose of the evidence offered was to interpolate into the contract as written a new and additional provision, that the corporation should not increase its capital stock during the time of plaintiff’s indefinite employment. The company would not he hound by such a stipulation or agreement, if made as claimed by plaintiff.

We are unable to see how such evidence can be competent, and we are of the opinion that it was properly rejected by the learned trial justice, and that his rulings in respect thereto should be sustained.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Follett, J. (dissenting):

The plaintiff offered to show that, a few days before this contract was executed, the president of the defendant, in its office, and in the presence of certain of its employees, then and there promised this plaintiff that the capital stock should remain the same. This promise, if given, was not binding on the defendant, for it was beyond the power of its president and of its entire board of directors to make any such agreement. The power to increase the capital stock of a corporation lies, not with its president or board of directors, but with its stockholders acting pursuant to statute. It is an elementary rule that the officers or directors of a corporation cannot bind it, except when acting within the scope of their authority. There is no evidence in the case which shows that the president or any of the persons present at the interview were authorized to hire the plaintiff or enter into any contract with him in respect to compensation. The contract was executed by the treasurer of the corporation and by the secretary, neither of whom was present at the alleged interview.

Again, the litigants, by their dealings, have given construction to the contract. After the capital was increased to $3,000,000, in April, 1892, the plaintiff received his share of the profits for 1892 and 1893 and for part of 1894 on the basis of that capitalization. The plaintiff testified that he knew of the increase of the stock only from what he had- heard ; that he had no notice of it from the company. In another part of his evidence he describes an interview* which he says occurred in June, 1893, with the treasurer, in which the increase was talked about; but again, at' a later period of the1 trial, his courage and knowledge had increased, and he testified that he did not know that the capital stock had been increased until two-months after his discharge.

It appears that a notice of the intention to .increase was published in the Syracuse Journal for seven weeks, and it is hardly to be-: credited that this man, intelligent enough to receive this salary, worked for this corporation during these years and knew' nothing-about the increase of its capital stock. • This increase would naturally and inevitably have. been the subject of conversation among the-employees of the corporation. I am for affirmance of the judgment.

Judgment and order reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs, to abide the event.  