Meyers v. Wells

7 Citing cases

  1. Brazil v. Menard, Inc.

    601 F. Supp. 3d 503 (D.S.D. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Wisconsin case law has remained constant on this proposition since the late nineteenth century. See id.; Borg-Warner, 18 Wis.2d at 488–89 ; Meyers v. Wells, 252 Wis. 352, 31 N.W.2d 512, 515 (1948) ("It is a general rule of law that if an employee continues working after his term expires and no new contract is made it will be presumed the parties intended he should be paid the same wages he received under the original contract"). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, carefully examined these holdings, distilling them into "the general rule that when an employee under contract continues employment past the contract term without a new agreement, there is a presumption that employment continues on the same terms."

  2. Anthony Gagliano & Co. v. Openfirst, LLC

    2014 WI 65 (Wis. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Disputing whether a transfer of property rights constituted an assignment or a sublease

    Additionally, we note that the cases the court of appeals cites for this proposition dealt with parties to an earlier contract. Meyers v. Wells, 252 Wis. 352, 357, 31 N.W.2d 512 (1948) (employing a presumption that an employee who worked for several years after his employment contract expired continued to work under the terms and conditions of the contract); S&O Liquidating P'ship v. Comm'r, 291 F.3d 454, 459 (7th Cir.2002) (quoting Skelton v. GM Corp., 860 F.2d 250, 260 (7th Cir.1988)) (former partners in an accounting firm who signed a closing agreement could not participate in a global settlement because “[a] party who has accepted the benefits of a contract cannot ‘have it both ways' by subsequently attempting to avoid its burdens”).¶ 55 Having explained the distinctions between assignee and subtenant and relative obligations of each regarding payment of rent, we turn to the remaining issue in this review: whether Quad/Graphics was an assignee of the Gagliano leases.

  3. Dairyland v. Doyle

    2006 WI 107 (Wis. 2006)   Cited 64 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Determining voter intent by examining public statements, news accounts, polls, news articles, and letters to the editor

    ¶ 61. Our analysis of a contractual renewal provision focuses primarily upon the intent of the parties when they entered into the contract.Reserve Life, 108 Wis. 2d at 645 (interpreting insurance contracts); Meyers v. Wells, 252 Wis. 352, 357, 31 N.W.2d 512 (1948) (interpreting employment contracts); Seefeldt v. Keske, 14 Wis. 2d 438, 442, 111 N.W.2d 574 (1961) (interpreting lease agreements). The parties' intent can be determined through the language of the contract itself.

  4. Brandenburg v. S.F. G. Co., Inc.

    207 Md. 413 (Md. 1955)   Cited 4 times

    " In Hollister v. Friedler, (1952), 18 N.J. Super. 171, 86 A.2d 809, 811, the following statement is made: "As a general rule, where one is employed for a definite period and continues in the employment after the expiration of that period without a new express contract, it is presumed that the employment is continued on the terms of the original contract." To the same effect see Art Wire Stamping Co. v. Johnson, 141 N.J. Eq. 101, 56 A.2d 11, (Ch. 1947), affirmed 142 N.J. Eq. 723, 61 A.2d 240, (1948); Meyers v. Wells, (1948), 252 Wis. 352, 31 N.W.2d 512, 515; Brightson v. H.B. Claflin Co., 180 N.Y. 76, 72 N.E. 920, 921; Adams v. Fitzpatrick, 125 N.Y.. 124, 26 N.E. 143; Empire Box, Inc. v. Moore, (1952), 87 Ga. App. 57, 73 S.E.2d 63, 69, where the original contract, partly oral and partly written, specified a weekly salary and commission as compensation; Holton v. Hart Mill Co., (1946), 24 Wn.2d 493, 166 P.2d 186, 187. In Fairchild v. Fairchild Clay Products Co., 141 Neb. 356, 3 N.W.2d 581, 583, it was also held that because an employee refrained from taking his full salary from month to month, without any intention on his part to waive the balance, he was not estopped from demanding the balance of his unpaid salary.

  5. Conway v. Marachowsky

    262 Wis. 540 (Wis. 1952)   Cited 3 times
    In Conway, the plaintiff was to develop and form the corporation and continue to render services to the corporation in consideration of the full amount of stock to be received.

    That these services were valuable to the corporation and that they retained the benefits from them is apparent. If the corporation accepts the benefits of a contract it must bear its burdens. "The rule is stated in Meyers v. Wells, 252 Wis. 352, 355: "`The corporation was not in existence at the time the contract was entered into, but it was a contract made by one of the promoters in the interest of the future corporation and constituted an offer which could be accepted by the corporation when it came into existence.

  6. Anthony Gagliano & Co. v. Openfirst, LLC

    2013 WI App. 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ¶ 28 A party that accepts a contract's benefits is bound to its burdens. Meyers v. Wells, 252 Wis. 352, 355, 31 N.W.2d 512, 514 (1948) (Accepting a contract's benefits “amounts to an adoption and [the party accepting the benefits] must accept the contract and its burdens as well as its benefits.”); S & O Liquidating Partnership v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 291 F.3d 454, 459 (7th Cir.2002) (“A party who has accepted the benefits of a contract cannot ‘have it both ways' by subsequently attempting to avoid its burdens.”).

  7. Stewart v. Douglas Stewart Company, Inc.

    687 N.W.2d 548 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004)

    Thus, "termination" occurred in 2000 and Stewart's right to deferred compensation payments commenced that same year. ¶ 10 We glean from a series of cases, beginning at least with Kellogg v.Citizens Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 94 Wis. 554, 557, 69 N.W. 362 (1896), the general rule that when an employee under contract continues employment past the contract term without a new agreement, there is a presumption that employment continues on the same terms. For example, in Meyers v. Wells, 252 Wis. 352, 353-54, 31 N.W.2d 512 (1948), an employee with a contract for a three-year term worked several years past the three-year term without a new agreement. In resolving the parties' dispute, the Meyers court employed the presumption that employment continued on the same terms. Seeid. at 357 ("It is a general rule of law that if an employee continues working after his term expires and no new contract is made it will be presumed the parties intended he should be paid the same wages he received under the original contract."); see alsoBorg-Warner Corp. v. Ostertag, 18 Wis.2d 484, 489, 118 N.W.2d 900 (1963) ("Where an employee is hired by the year and continues in employment after the end of a particular year, there is a presumption that he is again employed for the new year on the same terms as before."); Dickinsonv. Norwegian Plow Co., 101 Wis. 157, 160, 76 N.W. 1108 (1898) (contract provisions continue to apply "unless there be a new agreement shown, or at least facts which are sufficient to rebut the legal presumption