Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Tbe question for decision is whether tbe agreement to give tbe plaintiff “a regular permanent job” in tbe defendant’s new store means any more tban an indefinite general hiring terminable in good faith at tbe will of either party. 35 Am. Jur., 460; 39 C. J., 41.
While it is suggested in plaintiff’s testimony tbat tbe inducement to give up bis job in Fayetteville was sufficient consideration to support tbe agreement for permanent employment, still tbe agreement itself is for no definite time, and there is no business usage or other circumstance appearing on tbe record which would tend to give…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fisher v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Fisher v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Jones v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- McKelvy v. Choctaw Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Stevens v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1986
- Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
- Still v. LanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.