Dana Perfumes, Inc. v. Gene Mullica

Good Law
268 F.2d 936·1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3552
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 30, 195916221California974 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chambers, J.

For a time, and pursuant to a written contract, Mullica was a salesman to stores of Dana’s perfumes. He was discharged by Dana in September, 1955, effective as of the approaching October 1. This, Dana by the contract had a right to do without cause at the end of any month.

Mullica’s written agreement provided that he was to be paid on a commission basis of 6y%% of sales. His territory was all of California and Arizona and part of Nevada and he had worked for Dana for several years. He apparently was paid his commission on all sales upon which delivery had been made prior to his discharge. But his claim is that much of the year’s business in perfume is selling to the stores in the fall a supply of the stuff for the Christmas trade. He says, in the fall of 1955 before his discharge, he took a lot of orders, and others had come in, but Dana held up on delivery until after discharging him. Then it denied him commission thereon because he was no longer its salesman. So, a complaint upon the jurisdictional basis of diversity was filed.

The district court awarded plaintiff a summary judgment for $5,562.56, being 6y¡% of $85,577.90 of orders produced bj^ Mullica (or coming in from his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.