Charles E. Joseph v. Krull Wholesale Drug Company

Third Circuit

Charles E. Joseph v. Krull Wholesale Drug Company

245 F.2d 231, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 1957

Docket12168

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 245 F.2d 231 (Charles E. Joseph v. Krull Wholesale Drug Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles E. Joseph v. Krull Wholesale Drug Company, 245 F.2d 231, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222 (3d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant entered by the district court after special findings by a jury. The plaintiff had sued to recover damages for alleged breach of an oral contract of employment. Though plaintiff contended that the contract was for a definite term, the jury found that his employment was terminable at will. Appellant urges that it was error for the district court to admit into evidence certain minutes and resolutions of the defendant and evidence of its prior practice of hiring officers only at the will of its board of directors. The district court considered arguments concerning these contentions in disposing of post-trial motions. D.C.E.D.Pa. 1956, 147 F.Supp. 250. We agree with what was there said by the court.

Since the jury’s finding as to the duration of the contract is determinative of the case, it is unnecessary for us to pass upon the remaining questions raised by appellant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant entered by the district court after special findings by a jury. The plaintiff had sued to recover damages for alleged breach of an oral contract of employment. Though plaintiff contended that the contract was for a definite term, the jury found that his employment was terminable at will. Appellant urges that it was error for the district court to admit into evidence certain minutes and resolutions of the defendant and evidence of its prior practice of hiring officers only at the will of its board of directors. The district court considered arguments concerning these contentions in disposing of post-trial motions. D.C.E.D.Pa. 1956, 147 F.Supp. 250. We agree with what was there said by the court.

Since the jury’s finding as to the duration of the contract is determinative of the case, it is unnecessary for us to pass upon the remaining questions raised by appellant.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 F.2d 231, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-e-joseph-v-krull-wholesale-drug-company-ca3-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack