Arnold v. Railway Steel Spring Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Robb. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The contract of hiring as shown by respondent’s testimony was at will and not for a year. Boogher v. Insurance Co., 8 Mo. App. 534; Finger v. Brewing Co., 13 Mo. App. 311; Evans v. Railroad, 24 Mo. App. 114; Martin v. Insurance Co., 148 N. Y. 119 ; Creer v. Arlington Mills, 1 Pen. Del. Sup. Ct.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Robb. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The contract of hiring as shown by respondent’s testimony was at will and not for a year. Boogher v. Insurance Co., 8 Mo. App. 534; Finger v. Brewing Co., 13 Mo. App. 311; Evans v. Railroad, 24 Mo. App. 114; Martin v. Insurance Co., 148 N. Y. 119 ; Creer v. Arlington Mills, 1 Pen. Del. Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; Railroad v. Robinson, 3 Colo. 144; Orr v. Ward, 73 Ill. 119; Prentiss v. Ledyard, 28 Wis. 133. (2) The prior decision in this case, being erroneous, should not be followed. Chamber’s Admr. v. Smith’s Admr., 30 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtG-O'Ode, J.
The facts of this litigation will be found stated in the opinion delivered on the former appeal (131 Mo. App. 612). The proposition is reasserted on the present appeal that plaintiff’s employment by defendant was at will and not by the year. We held before the evidence went to prove it was by the year and adhere to the ruling; indeed, think the argument to the contrary is without force and the authorities cited to support it are not in point. In the conversation leading up' to the contract of employment, defendant’s officers said to plaintiff “about sis thousand dollars a year is as much as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Arnold v. Railway Steel Spring Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Williams v. John T. Hesser Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1921