Legal Opinion

Howell v. Commercial Credit Corp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 21, 1953No. 306PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEeviN, J.

The demurrer admits the factual averments of the complaint relating to the colloquy between the plaintiff and the divisional manager of the defendant, but it does not admit the legal conclusion of the complaint that such colloquy operated as an implied assurance from the defendant to the plaintiff that his employment by it was to be permanent. Clinard v. Lambeth, 234 N.C. 410, 67 S.E. 2d 452; Anderson v. Atkinson, 234 N.C. 271, 66 S.E. 2d 886.

When the plaintiff is accorded the full benefit of all its factual aver-ments, the complaint merely alleges a hiring under a contract which does not…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. Clinard v. LambethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Elmore v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. Anderson v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. May v. Tidewater Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Still v. LanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Dockery v. Lampart Table Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Lorbacher v. Housing Authority of RaleighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  5. Robert Guy v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API