Funk v. Acme Industries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
LEDERLE, Chief Judge.
In the language of the defendant’s brief, this is an action “upon an express written contract as modified by the parties.” The modification referred to is based also upon written documents, Exhibits A and B attached to the complaint. The writings referred to do not purport to represent all of the agreement between the parties with reference to the plaintiff’s employment. It is obvious from the pleadings and the exhibits attached that it was the intention of the parties that the employment contract involved was a yearly contract, beginning July 2, 1951. There is no dispute…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. KaratzSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- First National Bank of Columbus v. Louisiana Highway CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Corcoran v. Royal Development Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- Corcoran v. Royal Development Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1940