Knipp v. Harris

D.C. Circuit

Knipp v. Harris

45 App. D.C. 460, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2714

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1916

DocketNo. 2950

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 App. D.C. 460 (Knipp v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Knipp v. Harris, 45 App. D.C. 460, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2714 (D.C. Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

We think that under the contract plaintiff was employed from year to year. His employment could only be terminated by two months’ notice prior to the expiration of any year. This method of terminating the contract was open to defendants at the end of the first year had it been adopted, but, failing to avail themselves of this privilege, they were bound to continue the employment for another year, or abide the consequences.

The method of arriving at the verdict was right, and, though the trial judge reached his conclusion, as expressed in his instructions to the jury, from a slightly different construction of the contract than that here announced, the result is the same.

The .judgment, therefore, is affirmed with costs.

Affirmed.

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