Stevens v. Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 335. |
| Citation | 122 S.E. 295,187 N.C. 528 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Connor, Judge.
Action by Sam J. Stevens against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
Evidence as to a contract to employ plaintiff for life, made in consideration of a compromise of a claim for damages against a railway company consolidated with defendant, held to show that defendant with knowledge of the contract continued plaintiff's employment and recognized and ratified the agreement under which the compromise was effected.
The jury returned the following verdict:
(1) Did the defendant enter into contract with the plaintiff that it would keep him in its employment so long as plaintiff should live, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
(2) If so, did defendant wrongfully breach said contract, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
(3) What sum, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant as damages? Answer: $1,000.
The plaintiff testified that he had worked for the Richmond and Danville Railroad and the defendant, its successor, from 1879 until his discharge, which took place in July or August 1921; that he had been injured through the negligence of the road for which he was working in 1883; that he had suffered later injuries which were due to the same cause, and had afterwards entered into a written contract executed by himself, Capt.
West Capt. Green, superintendent of the road who was afterwards general manager of the Southern Railway, and another man whose name he did not remember; that all these men were dead but had worked for the defendants; that the contract, which had been burnt, provided substantially that, if he did not sue the railroad for his injuries, it would give him a job as long as he could work, and take care of him afterwards. He further testified that in 1916 the president of the defendant company gave him a bronze badge on one side of which was the inscription "Southern Railway Company for loyalty," and on the other, "Sam J. Stevens, 1879 to 1916" that he was 71 years old and at the time of his discharge was earning about $60 a month.
The defendant denied the execution of the alleged contract and introduced evidence tending to show that the Southern Railway was not organized until 1894, and that the plaintiff had been discharged for neglect of duty. The defendant also alleged that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, tendered no issue as to this question, and none was submitted.
Fuller & Fuller, of Durham, for appellant.
Brawley & Gantt and R. O. Everett, all of Durham, for appellee.
The first six exceptions are addressed to the admission of evidence tending to show the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. These injuries are described in the complaint, not for the purpose of stating a cause of action, but of showing both the reasonableness of the contract relied on and the circumstances under which it was made. The plaintiff alleges that he filed no claim for damages because he was assured by the company through whose negligence he had been injured that in consideration of his waiver he should have employment as long as he lived; and the evidence excepted to was properly admitted as tending to show the consideration upon which the agreement was made, and it was no doubt so understood by the jury.
It has been held that contracts of this character are not against public policy or incapable of enforcement on the ground of indefiniteness merely because the exact period of service is not specified. Hence the courts have sustained contracts by employers to give to servants injured by their negligence "steady and permanent" employment, or employment "as long as the company's works are running," or "so long as the business of a corporation continues," or during the life of the employee, or to give "a living wage required for the support of the employee and his family." As we have indicated, it cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Proctor v. State Highway and Public Works Commission
... ... right of way for highway purposes whenever it deems such ... action conducive to the interests of the public. Hildebrand ... v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 219 N.C. 402, ... 14 S.E.2d 252. This necessarily implies that the State ... Highway and Public Works Commission ... principles set out above. Crisp v. Hanover Thread ... Mills, 189 N.C. 89, 126 S.E. 110; Stevens v ... Southern R. Co., 187 N.C. 528, 122 S.E. 295 ... ... Whether the presence of parts of the dwelling and store on ... the ... ...
-
Jones v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
... ... and nonapparent ... The ... contract as established by the verdict is not void for ... indefiniteness. Stevens v. R. R., 187 N.C. 528, 122 ... S.E. 295; Fisher v. Lumber Co., 183 N.C. 485, 111 ... S.E. 857, 35 A. L. R. 1417 ... The law ... ...
-
Dotson v. F. S. Royster Guano Co.
... ... issues establishing the alleged contract and its breach ... Jones v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 206 N.C. 862, ... 175 S.E. 167; Stevens v. R. R. Co., 187 N.C. 528, ... 122 S.E. 295; Fisher v. Lumber Co., 183 N.C. 485, ... 111 S.E. 857, 35 A. L. R. 1417. But a contrary impression ... ...
-
Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co.
... ... years". Nor are the cases of Fisher v. John L. Roper ... Lumber Co., 183 N.C. 485, 111 S.E. 857, 35 A.L.R. 1417; ... Stevens v. Southern R. Co., 187 N.C. 528, 122 S.E ... 295, and Dotson v. F.S. Royster Guano Co., 207 N.C ... 635, 178 S.E. 100, where there were ... ...