Jones v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1934
• Docket Number: 91.
• Parties: JONES v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

175 S.E. 167

206 N.C. 862

JONES v. CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 91.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

July 11, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; McElroy, Judge.

Action by B. E. Jones against the Carolina Power & Light Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract of employment.

Proof of nature and extent of agency may not be made by extrajudicial declarations of alleged agent.

There is allegation and evidence on the part of the plaintiff tending to show that on September 25, 1926, the plaintiff, an experienced street car motorman or conductor, was induced by defendant's agent and superintendent to leave his employment and home in Spartanburg, S. C., and come to Asheville, N. C., to break a strike, "the operators of the street cars in the City of Asheville then being out on strike," under a promise of "permanent employment for the term of at least ten years"; that plaintiff remained in the employment of the defendant until January 24 1932, when he was discharged without cause; and that the defendant has refused to re-employ him in any capacity whatever.

Defendant's superintendent of distribution and lighting, who was also assistant to the vice president of the company, as a witness for the defendant, testified on cross-examination, inter alia, as follows: "Mr. Jones in this case was told by me that if he would accept this job and begin work and help break this strike, and, in the event later he did not get regular work on the cars, I would give him other work in other departments. * * * I will say positively there was no definite length of time specified. * * * When I went to South Carolina, I had authority not only to hire the men to operate the street cars but offer and promise them work in other departments, if they were not used on the street cars in order that we might give them regular work, because I knew they were being put by me in a dangerous situation."

Upon denial of liability and issues joined, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and assessed the damages at $1,780. From the judgment entered thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

A. Y Arledge, of Raleigh, and R. F. Phillips and Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton, all of Asheville, for appellant.

Weaver & Miller and J. Y. Jordan, Jr., all of Asheville, for appellee.

STACY Chief Justice.

The defendant assails the validity of the trial principally upon the ground: First, that the alleged contract of employment is too indefinite; and, second, that defendant's agent's authority to make such...