Scott v. BURLINGTON MILLS CORPORATION

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Scott v. BURLINGTON MILLS CORPORATION

95 S.E.2d 273, 245 N.C. 100, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 535, 39 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2265

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 28, 1956·No. 594·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PeR Cueiam.

The complaint nowhere alleges that the discharge was in breach of any contract of employment. Without such contract, a discharge is not wrongful. No cause of action has been stated because of the termination of the employment. May v. Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E. 2d 308; Howell v. Credit Corp., 238 N.C. 442, 78 S.E. 2d 146. As only one cause of action is alleged, the judgment sustaining the demurrer is

Reversed.

JohnsoN, J., not sitting. *102 DeNNY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

PeR Cueiam.

The complaint nowhere alleges that the discharge was in breach of any contract of employment. Without such contract, a discharge is not wrongful. No cause of action has been stated because of the termination of the employment. May v. Power Co., 216 N.C. 439, 5 S.E. 2d 308; Howell v. Credit Corp., 238 N.C. 442, 78 S.E. 2d 146. As only one cause of action is alleged, the judgment sustaining the demurrer is

Reversed.

JohnsoN, J., not sitting. *102 DeNNY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Scott v. BURLINGTON MILLS CORPORATION, 95 S.E.2d 273, 245 N.C. 100, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 535, 39 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2265 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

95 S.E.2d 273 (Scott v. BURLINGTON MILLS CORPORATION) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related