Stewart v. North Side Produce Co., 40601

Decision Date22 December 1976
Docket NumberNo. 40601,40601
PartiesGeorge STEWART, Jr., Appellant, v. NORTH SIDE PRODUCE COMPANY, a corporation, and Don Jordan, Appellees.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

An employment contract with no fixed term may be terminated at any time by either the employer or the employee, at his own pleasure.

Jon B. Abbott, Omaha, for appellant.

Frederick S. Cassman, of Abrahams, Kaslow & Cassman, Omaha, for appellees.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., McCOWN and CLINTON, JJ., and STUART and RIST, District Judges.

STUART, District Judge.

This is an appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer to plaintiff's petition.

Plaintiff's petition alleged defendant North Side Produce Company employed plaintiff as a truck driver under an employment contract with no fixed term. Defendant Jordan, acting within the scope of his employment by defendant North Side Produce Company, announced a policy: 'That if any further mechanical breakdowns of the company's trucks occurred, somebody would be fired.' Following mechanical trouble in a truck assigned to plaintiff, plaintiff was fired, and plaintiff's petition prayed for damages incurred by reason of this discharge. For his second cause of action plaintiff alleged defendant Jordan, acting within the scope of his employment, later informed prospective employers of plaintiff that he had been fired for cause, and thereupon prayed for damages for slander.

It was held in State v. Employers of Labor, 102 Neb. 768, 169 N.W. 717 (1918): 'If there is no contract for any fixed term of employment, the employer may discharge, or the employee stop work, at his own pleasure.' This holding was quoted and followed in the case of Ploog v. Roberts Dairy Co., 122 Neb. 540, 240 N.W. 764 (1932), and it is the controlling rule of law on plaintiff's first cause of action.

The plaintiff's brief does not argue the trial court's action in sustaining the demurrer as to the cause of action for slander and therefore it will not be considered here. See Rule 8a 2(3), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1974.

The judgment of the District Court was correct and is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Rose v. Eastern Neb. Human Serv. Agency, Civ. No. 78-0-192.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • March 24, 1981
    ......Co. v. Waters, supra, 438 U.S. 567 at 576, 98 S.Ct. ...ENHSA, supra, 632 F.2d at 60, citing Stewart v. North Side Produce Co., 197 Neb. 245, 248 ......
  • Roach v. PLAINVIEW SCH. DIST. NO. 5, Civ. No. 77-L-117.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • December 4, 1978
    ...... stop work, at his own pleasure." Stewart v. North Side Produce Company, 197 Neb. 245, ...717 (1918); Ploog v. Roberts Dairy Co., 122 Neb. 540, 240 N.W. 764 (1932). Without ......
  • Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co., 86-242
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • April 1, 1988
    ...... Stewart v. North Side Produce Co., 197 Neb. 245, 248 N.W.2d 37 ......
  • Mau v. Omaha Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 21, 1980
    ......717, 718 (1918). See, also, Stewart v. North Side Produce Co., 197 Neb. 245, 248 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT