Dotson v. F. S. Royster Guano Co.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | 533. |
| Parties | DOTSON v. F. S. ROYSTER GUANO CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Cowper, Special Judge.
Action by Isaac M. Dotson against the F. S. Royster Guano Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Partial new trial.
In action for breach of contract to give plaintiff life employment of kind he was performing when contract was executed, at regular compensation therefor, plaintiff, having been employed as timekeeper when contract was executed, held limited in recovery to timekeeper's compensation during period sued for, although at time contract was breached he occupied higher position with increased compensation.
Civil action to recover for breach of contract to give plaintiff employment which he alleges the defendant made as a part of the consideration for his executing a release of claim for damages growing out of a personal injury suffered by him while in the defendant's employ.
The injury suffered by plaintiff, which ultimately resulted in the amputation or loss of his right leg, occurred December 13, 1913, while plaintiff was employed at defendant's Spartanburg plant. In 1914, plaintiff was transferred to defendant's Charlotte plant and given the occupation of timekeeper, which position he held in August, 1915, when the contract sued upon is alleged to have been made. Thereafter in 1917, the plaintiff was promoted to factory bookkeeper and again in 1926 he was moved to the uptown office and given the duties of bookkeeper and cashier. He was discharged from defendant's employ at the close of 1931. The salary of timekeeper at defendant's Charlotte plant during 1932 and 1933, the time for which he presently sues, was $20 per week.
Upon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned the following verdict:
"1. Did the plaintiff and the defendant enter into a contract by the terms of which the defendant agreed for the period of the plaintiff's life, or as long as he was able to perform same, to give plaintiff employment of the kind and character he was performing in August 1915, at the regular compensation therefor? Answer: Yes.
2. Has the plaintiff at all times been able, ready and willing to perform the said contract as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
3. Did the defendant wrongfully breach said contract as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
4. If so, what damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover for the period from January 1st, 1932, to December 31st, 1932? Answer: $2,100.00.
5. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover for the period from January 1, 1933, to December 31, 1933? Answer: $1,700.00."
With plaintiff's consent, the court reduced the award of damages given in response to the fourth issue to $1,800, and that given in response to the fifth issue to $1,600, and rendered judgment accordingly.
From the judgment thus rendered, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Willcox, Cooke & Willcox, of Norfolk, Va., and Tillett, Tillett & Kennedy, of Charlotte, for appellant.
John M. Robinson and Marvin L. Ritch, both of Charlotte, for appellee.
A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that no error was committed on the trial of the first three issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial