Hogle v. Delong Hook and Eye Company

• Decision Date: 15 March 1915
• Docket Number: 153
• Citation: 94 A. 190,248 Pa. 471
• Parties: Hogle, Appellant, v. DeLong Hook and Eye Company
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 A. 190

248 Pa. 471

Hogle, Appellant, v. DeLong Hook and Eye Company

No. 153

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

March 15, 1915

Argued January 13, 1915

Appeal, No. 153, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1912, No. 4220, for defendant on demurrer to plaintiff's statement of claim in case of W.W. Hogle v. De Long Hook and Eye Company. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on an alleged contract of employment. Before MARTIN, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The defendant demurred to the plaintiff's statement of claim. The court sustained the demurrer and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the judgment of the court.

We are of opinion with the learned judge in the court below that the statement in this case discloses no cause of action. The assignment of error is therefore overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Francis Shunk Brown, with him Frank A. Chalmers, for appellant.

E Stanley Richardson, for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER and FRAZER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEWART:

The issue here raised was on a demurrer to the plaintiff's statement. The statement averred an oral contract by which the defendant agreed to employ the plaintiff at a salary of $3,000.00 per year, payable in monthly installments, from the 16th day of August, 1909, and that plaintiff in pursuance of said contract entered into the defendant's employ, and so continued up to the 16th August, 1910; that for the first two weeks of the next succeeding yearly term he continued at like salary, but that his salary was then increased to $3,500.00 for the remaining portion of that year, that is from September 1st, 1910, to August 16th, 1911; that he continued in said employment thereafter from 16th August, 1911, to 16th August, 1912, at the same salary, and from 16th August, 1912, to 31st August, 1912, when he was wrongfully dismissed "in violation of the contract of employment between the parties which commenced 16th August, 1909, and continued from year to year thereafter." The demand was for salary for fifty weeks following the dismissal at $3,500.00 per year, less certain credits. The demurrer is based on the legal position that the statement discloses no cause of action, inasmuch as the contract as there set out was not a contract of employment for any specific term, but at will, and it further denies the implication averred. It was sustained by the court below and judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant. Three months after the entry of judgment, a rule issued at the instance of the plaintiff to show cause why the judgment should not be opened and an amendment to the statement allowed. The rule was subsequently discharged, so that we have nothing before us but the original statement to consider.

The insufficiency of the statement is quite evident Admitting every fact there averred, it comes short of making out a prima facie case. "In a contract of hiring, when no definite period is expressed, in the absence of facts and circumstances showing a different intention, the law will presume a hiring at will. The...