Mitchell v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 4083.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4083.,4083. |
| Citation | 184 F.2d 837 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Abraham Weinlood, Hutchinson, Kan. (Don Shaffer, Hutchinson, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.
George C. Spradling, Wichita, Kan. (T. W. Arrington, Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.
Appellant brought this action in the District Court of Reno County, Kansas, to recover damages growing out of his discharge from the employment of appellee. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on the ground of diversity. That court sustained a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This appeal followed.
The complaint sets forth in substance that plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendant for a long period of time and had during such employment acquired certain rights provided for by the company including retirement at the age of 65; that during this employment plaintiff contemplated an action against a fellow employee to recover damages caused by an assault and battery upon the person of the plaintiff; that defendant had advised the plaintiff that if the action was brought he would be discharged from his employment; that such action was brought against the fellow employee and defendant immediately discharged the plaintiff. Damages were claimed for loss of wages, impairment of health and exemplary damages.
The plaintiff concedes that the employment was for an indefinite period and recognizes the American rule in such cases that the employment is terminable at the will of either party. Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp., 10 Cir., 46 F.2d 385; Littell v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 73 App. D.C. 409, 120 F.2d 36; Swart v. Huston, 154 Kan. 182, 117 P.2d 576; Restatement, Agency, Sec. 442; 35 Am.Jur., Master and Servant, Sec. 19; Anno. 161 A.L.R. 709. Plaintiff, however, presents a novel theory that the complaint is not based upon an unlawful discharge but is an action to recover damages for interference with plaintiff's right as a citizen to sue in the courts for redress of wrongs. The discharge cannot be so easily disassociated from the plaintiff's claim. He sought legal redress in the courts for his injury, Mitchell v. Dawson, 164 Kan. 630, 191 P.2d 913, contrary to the advice of the defendant and consequently had he not been discharged he would have suffered no loss. Plaintiff had a right to seek this redress but he had no inherent right to do so and remain in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 4512.
...Harper v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 5 Cir., 73 F.2d 792; Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp., 10 Cir., 46 F.2d 385; Mitchell v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 10 Cir., 184 F.2d 837. 5 Holland v. Spartanburg Herald-Journal Co., 166 S.C. 454, 165 S.E. 203. See also Report and Annotations of this case......
-
May v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co.
...Court of Appeals and of the Federal District Court of Kansas are in harmony with the rule in the Swart case. (Mitchell v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co., [U.S.C.A.10th], 184 F.2d 837; Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp., [C.C.A.10th], 46 F.2d 385; and Kunz v. Colnon, [D.C.Kan.], 54 F.Supp. 673.) In ......
-
Christner v. Poudre Valley Cooperative Ass'n
...except nominal damages. 35 Am.Jur., §§ 26-27, pp. 462-463; Kunz v. Colnon, D.C.Kan.1944, 54 F.Supp. 673; Mitchell v. Stanolind Pipe Line Co., 10 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 837; Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corporation, supra; Odell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., The last mentioned cases from the Te......
-
Wynn v. Boeing Military Airplane Co., Civ. A. No. 83-1983.
...violation, an employment relationship is terminable at the will of either party with or without cause. Mitchell v. Stanolind Pipeline Co., 184 F.2d 837 (10th Cir. 1950). Defendant's construction of the employment at will theory is incomplete, however, as will be explained below. Plaintiff r......