O. Hommel Co. v. Jackson

Third Circuit

O. Hommel Co. v. Jackson

74 F.2d 1018, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 1934

DocketNo. 5495

StatusPublished

This text of 74 F.2d 1018 (O. Hommel Co. v. Jackson) 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

O. Hommel Co. v. Jackson, 74 F.2d 1018, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028 (3d Cir. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jackson sued the O. Hommel Company for breach of a contract of employment. He said he was discharged before the end of the term of his engagement. The O. Hommel Company said he resigned. The jury by their verdict for the plaintiff settled that question on evidence which, if sufficient, and on the law which, if correctly charged, validate the judgment.

The controversy revolved mainly around two issues: (a) Whether or not there was an accord and satisfaction; and (b) whether or not the employee should have tendered performance after the employer had withdrawn notice of his dismissal.

The judgment is affirmed on the reasoning of the learned trial judge in his opinion sur motion for new trial, and on a finding that the evidence, which was submitted upon proper instructions, is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

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

PER CURIAM.

Jackson sued the O. Hommel Company for breach of a contract of employment. He said he was discharged before the end of the term of his engagement. The O. Hommel Company said he resigned. The jury by their verdict for the plaintiff settled that question on evidence which, if sufficient, and on the law which, if correctly charged, validate the judgment.

The controversy revolved mainly around two issues: (a) Whether or not there was an accord and satisfaction; and (b) whether or not the employee should have tendered performance after the employer had withdrawn notice of his dismissal.

The judgment is affirmed on the reasoning of the learned trial judge in his opinion sur motion for new trial, and on a finding that the evidence, which was submitted upon proper instructions, is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 F.2d 1018, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-hommel-co-v-jackson-ca3-1934.