F. C. Kain v. Armour and Company

Fifth Circuit

F. C. Kain v. Armour and Company

355 F.2d 422

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1966

Docket22268_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 355 F.2d 422 (F. C. Kain v. Armour and Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

F. C. Kain v. Armour and Company, 355 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was discharged by Armour and Company after employment of twenty-seven years. The contract of employment provided that the employment relationship might be terminated by either party without previous notice.

This action against Armour was based on two contentions. First, appellant alleges that certain promises relative to continued employment, on which he acted, were fraudulent in that they were made by Armour with the affirmative intent not to perform. Second, it is said that Armour breached an agreement to place appellant under an amended pension plan adopted subsequent to his discharge.

The court directed a verdict against appellant at the close of his case. The test to be applied on this appeal is whether under appellant’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, and with every inference therefrom given full effect, there is evidence from which the jury could have found in appellant’s favor. See Hogan v. United States, (5 Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 276, for statement of the rule.

So tested, we find no evidence to support the charge of fraud nor was there sufficient proof to establish the claimed agreement regarding the amended pension plan. Cf. Hablas v. Armour and Company, (8 Cir. 1959) 270 F.2d 71.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was discharged by Armour and Company after employment of twenty-seven years. The contract of employment provided that the employment relationship might be terminated by either party without previous notice.

This action against Armour was based on two contentions. First, appellant alleges that certain promises relative to continued employment, on which he acted, were fraudulent in that they were made by Armour with the affirmative intent not to perform. Second, it is said that Armour breached an agreement to place appellant under an amended pension plan adopted subsequent to his discharge.

The court directed a verdict against appellant at the close of his case. The test to be applied on this appeal is whether under appellant’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, and with every inference therefrom given full effect, there is evidence from which the jury could have found in appellant’s favor. See Hogan v. United States, (5 Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 276, for statement of the rule.

So tested, we find no evidence to support the charge of fraud nor was there sufficient proof to establish the claimed agreement regarding the amended pension plan. Cf. Hablas v. Armour and Company, (8 Cir. 1959) 270 F.2d 71.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-c-kain-v-armour-and-company-ca5-1966.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack