Briggs v. American & Efird Mills, Inc., No. 258
| Docket Nº | No. 258 |
| Citation | 111 S.E.2d 841, 251 N.C. 642 |
| Case Date | January 14, 1960 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Page 841
v.
AMERICAN & EFIRD MILLS, INC.
Carpenter & Webb, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant.
Helms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston, Charlotte, for defendant-appellee.
[251 N.C. 644] RODMAN, Justice.
The question presented is this: Did the placing of another person in charge of defendant's Spun Fibers Division terminate Briggs' service with defendant?
The answer is to be found in the contract. When a contract is in writing and free from ambiguity, interpretation is for the court. 'When competent parties contract at arms length upon a lawful subject, as to them the contract is the law of their case. ' Suits v. Old Equity Life Insurance Co., 249 N.C. 383, 106 S.E.2d 579, 582; Barham v. Davenport, 247 N.C. 575, 101 S.E.2d 367.
When a court is called upon to interpret, it seeks to ascertain the intent of the parties at the moment of execution. To ascertain this intent, the court looks to the language used, the situation of the parties, and objects to be accomplished. Presumably the words which the parties select were deliberately chosen and are to be given their ordinary significance. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Nello L. Teer Co., 250 N.C. 547, 109 S.E.2d 171; De Bruhl v. State Highway, 245 N.C. 139, 92 S.E.2d 553; Chambers v. Byers, 214 N.C. 373, 199 S.E. 398; Gilbert v. Waccamaw Shingle Co., 167 N.C. 286, 83 S.E. 337.
We examine the contract and allegations in the complaint in the light of these controlling rules. When we do so, it appears: Defendant's manufacturing operations are extensive; the Spun Fibers Division is a segment thereof; to supervise and direct its manufacturing operations, it desired a capable and experienced person; and to obtain such services defendant agreed to pay substantial compensation; each party regarded a fixed term for a number of years as best suited to accomplish the object of the contract, which was manifestly efficient and economical production of goods.
The parties recognized that conditions might arise which would cause a termination of the contract and cessation of plaintiff's services. If this cessation of services was due to plaintiff's physical disability, defendant obligated itself to 'maintain its performance under this contract throughout one year of such incapacity'; if the termination of plaintiff's services was due to his intentional wrong (fraud or dishonesty)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colo. Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. AT Denmark Invs., ApS, No. 5:20-CV-409-D
...Under North Carolina law, interpreting a written contract is a question of law for the court. See Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960); Brown v. Between Dandelions, Inc., 849 S.E.2d 67, 70 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020); N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v......
-
Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-275-D
...Carolina law, interpreting a written and unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court. Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960). When construing contractual terms, a contract's plain language controls. See, e.g., State v. Philip Morris ......
-
Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 5:07–CV–275–D.
...Carolina law, interpreting a written and unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court. Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960). When construing contractual terms, a contract's plain language controls. See, e.g., State v. Philip Morris ......
-
Colo. Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. AT Denmark Investments, APS, 5:20-CV-409-D
...Under North Carolina law, interpreting a written contract is a question of law for the court. See Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960) ; Brown v. Between Dandelions, Inc., 849 S.E.2d 67, 70 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020) ; N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.......
-
Colo. Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. AT Denmark Invs., ApS, No. 5:20-CV-409-D
...Under North Carolina law, interpreting a written contract is a question of law for the court. See Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960); Brown v. Between Dandelions, Inc., 849 S.E.2d 67, 70 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020); N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mi......
-
Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 5:07-CV-275-D
...North Carolina law, interpreting a written and unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court. Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960). When construing contractual terms, a contract's plain language controls. See, e.g., State v. Philip Morri......
-
Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 5:07–CV–275–D.
...North Carolina law, interpreting a written and unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court. Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960). When construing contractual terms, a contract's plain language controls. See, e.g., State v. Philip Morri......
-
Colo. Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. AT Denmark Investments, APS, 5:20-CV-409-D
...Under North Carolina law, interpreting a written contract is a question of law for the court. See Briggs v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 251 N.C. 642, 644, 111 S.E.2d 841, 843 (1960) ; Brown v. Between Dandelions, Inc., 849 S.E.2d 67, 70 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020) ; N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. ......