Eubanks v. Alspaugh

• Decision Date: 15 November 1905
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: EUBANKS. v. ALSPAUGH et al.

52 S.E. 207

139 N.C. 520

EUBANKS.

v.ALSPAUGH et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 15, 1905.

1. Master and Servant—Discharge—Justification—Burden of Proof.

In an action for breach of a contract of employment, the contract and the servant's discharge by defendants having been established, the burden was on the latter to prove a justification.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 47.]

2. Appeal, —Harmless Error.

Where, in an action for breach of a contract employing plaintiff as superintendent of defendant's mill, there was evidence that defendants only inquired as to plaintiff's capacity as a weaver, and that it was not necessary that a superintendent should be an expert in all departments of a mill, but there was no evidence of any notice to defendants as to plaintiff's qualifications as a carder and spinner, error in an instruction that the fact that plaintiff was not an expert carder and spinner would not justify his discharge, if defendants had notice thereof before employing him, was not material.

3. Master and Servant — Wrongful Discharge—Incompetency—Instructions.

In an action for wrongful discharge of a servant, an instruction that if it was necessary for a person employed in plaintiff's capacity to understand carding, spinning, and weaving, and plaintiff did not sufficiently understand such vocations to enable him to direct those in charge of such departments, and he did not intelligently direct them on account of his lack of skill and knowledge, defendants had a rie;ht to discharge him from their employment, sufficiently covered the defense that plaintiff was properly discharged for incapacity.

Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Bryan, Judge.

Action by S. D. Eubanks against U. L. Alspaugh and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, having employed him as superintendent of their mill for a term of six months, wrongfully discharged the plaintiff, to his damage, etc. The defendants denied that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged, and alleged, by way of further defense, that the plaintiff was entirely incompetent to perform the duties he had undertaken, and claimed the right to discharge him on that account, and they further set up this breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff as a counterclaim to his demand. Issues were submitted responsive to the pleadings. Verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendants excepted and appealed.

Armfield & Turner and R. Z. Linney, for appellants.

Furches, Coble & Nicholson and Zeb V. Long, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The judge below charged the jury very fully on the issues, and properly put on the plaintiff the burden of proving the contract of employment, the discharge by the defendants, and the existence and amount of substantial damage. The only exception made by the defendants, or urged upon our attention, was in giving the prayer for instructions by the plaintiff No. 7, which is as follows: "The burden is upon the defendants to show that the plaintiff was not capable and efficient in the performance of his duties under the contract, and if the jury should find by a greater weight of the evidence that the plaintiff was not an expert in the departments of carding and spinning, yet if the jury further find by a greater weight of the evidence that the defendants had notice of this fact, at or before the time they employed the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was not an...