May v. Tide Water Power Co, 380.
| Docket Nº | No. 380. |
| Citation | 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308 |
| Case Date | November 08, 1939 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
5 S.E.2d 308
216 N.C. 439
MAY.
v.
TIDE WATER POWER CO.
No. 380.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nov. 8, 1939.
[5 S.E.2d 309]
Appeal from Superior Court, Lenoir County; Frizzelle, Judge.
Action by J. S. May against the Tide Water Power Company for wrongful discharge of the plaintiff as an employee of the defendant. From an order overruling demurrer to the complaint, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Civil action for recovery of damages resulting from wrongful discharge of plaintiff, heard upon demurrer.
The complaint alleges in part:
"4. That this plaintiff was employed by the defendant in May, 1931, and was in its employment until he was discharged as hereinafter mentioned on March 24, 1938. During practically all of his period of employment by the defendant, the plaintiff served as Branch Manager of the defendant at its Kinston, North Carolina, office and plant.
"5. That on March 24, 1938, the defendant illegally, ruthlessly, wantonly and wrongfully discharged the plaintiff and made said discharge unnecessarily in a public place and in a public manner on the public street of the City of Kinston, and at an hour of the day when the street was frequented by passers by, many of whom, as the plaintiff is advised and believes, and so alleges, heard the discharge of this plaintiff as it was being made. That in order to make the discharge in the manner hereinbefore specified the defendant actually called this plaintiff from his office and from the office building occupied by the defendant in the City of Kinston, to the public street, and there in the manner aforesaid effected the discharge of this plaintiff from the service of the defendant. That at the time and on this public street this plaintiff protested against the conduct of the defendant and demanded that he first be given an auditing of his accounts and that he be permitted to turn over the office and the property of the defendant in an appropriate and orderly way, all of which was refused.
"6. That no complaint had ever been made by the defendant to this plaintiff as to purpose to discharge him at all, nor had any complaint been made to the plaintiff by the defendant to the effect that his services were unsatisfactory. At the time of the discharge in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, this plaintiff requested that information concerning the reasons therefor be given him, all of which was refused by the defendant.
"7. That the discharge of the plaintiff in the manner as hereinbefore mentioned became quickly known through the passers by and was immediately and continuously and generally discussed by the people of the City of Kinston and in the vicinity thereof where this plaintiff has spent his entire life and was well and favorably
[5 S.E.2d 310]known. That great speculation and gossip was indulged in by the people as to what conduct by the plaintiff caused such peremptory and public discharge of this plaintiff by the defendant.
"8. That the service of this plaintiff during all the time of his employment by the defendant had been diligent, efficient and faithful to the defendant.
"9. That by the conduct of the defendant as hereinbefore mentioned, this plaintiff has been greatly damaged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sides v. Duke University, 8314SC1308
...279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971); Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964); May v. Tidewater Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308 (1939). See generally, Note, Workers' Compensation--Retaliatory Discharge--The Legislative Response to Dockery v. Lampart Table......
-
Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 8521SC292
...contracts of indefinite duration are terminable at will. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971); May v. Tidewater Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308 (1939); Currier v. Lumber Co., 150 N.C. 694, 64 S.E. 763 (1909). "Where a contract of employment does not fix a definite term,......
-
Still v. Lance, 105
...Commercial Credit Corp., 238 N.C. 442, 78 S.E.2d 146; Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co., 223 N.C. 148, 25 S.E.2d 436; May v. Tidewater Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308; Elmore v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 191 N.C. 182, 131 S.E. 633; 43 A.L.R. 1072; Currier v. M. Ritter Lumber Co., 150 N.C. 69......
-
May v. Tide Water Power Co., 380.
...5 S.E.2d 308 216 N.C. 439 MAY v. TIDE WATER POWER CO. No. 380.Supreme Court of North CarolinaNovember 8, [5 S.E.2d 309] Civil action for recovery of damages resulting from wrongful discharge of plaintiff, heard upon demurrer. The complaint alleges in part: "4. That this plaintiff was employ......
-
Sides v. Duke University, 8314SC1308
...279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971); Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964); May v. Tidewater Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308 (1939). See generally, Note, Workers' Compensation--Retaliatory Discharge--The Legislative Response to Dockery v. Lampart Table......
-
Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 8521SC292
...contracts of indefinite duration are terminable at will. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971); May v. Tidewater Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308 (1939); Currier v. Lumber Co., 150 N.C. 694, 64 S.E. 763 (1909). "Where a contract of employment does not fix a definite term,......
-
Still v. Lance, 105
...Commercial Credit Corp., 238 N.C. 442, 78 S.E.2d 146; Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co., 223 N.C. 148, 25 S.E.2d 436; May v. Tidewater Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E.2d 308; Elmore v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 191 N.C. 182, 131 S.E. 633; 43 A.L.R. 1072; Currier v. M. Ritter Lumber Co., 150 N.C. 69......
-
May v. Tide Water Power Co., 380.
...5 S.E.2d 308 216 N.C. 439 MAY v. TIDE WATER POWER CO. No. 380.Supreme Court of North CarolinaNovember 8, [5 S.E.2d 309] Civil action for recovery of damages resulting from wrongful discharge of plaintiff, heard upon demurrer. The complaint alleges in part: "4. That this plaintiff was employ......