Davidson v. Laughlin
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Russ Avery, and Bicknell, Gibson & Trask, for Appellant. A contract for employment for an indefinite time is terminable at the will of either party. (Lord v. Goldberg, 81 Cal. 596;1 Perry v. Wheeler, 12 Bush, 541; Elderton v. Emmons, 4 Mann. G. & S. 478; 56 Com. L. Rep. 478; Harper v. Hassard, 113 Mass. 187; Coffin v. Landis, 46 Pa. St. 431.)
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The action is for the recovery of the reasonable value of certain services rendered by plaintiff to defendant. These facts were averred in the complaint and found by the court: Plaintiff was in the employment of defendant from the first day of October, 1896, to the twenty-fifth day of July, 1898; but for services rendered prior to May 1, 1897, plaintiff was paid, and they form no part of the matters here in litigation. As to what plaintiff was to receive for his services…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Speegle v. Board of Fire UnderwritersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Brown v. Crown Gold Milling Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Roxana Petroleum Co. v. RiceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Boehm v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Oliver v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.