Summary
holding that testimony that the defendant corporation made at-will contracts with all of the seven individuals who had ever served as officers, was admissible as tending to prove the defendant's practice not to make contracts for definite periods of time with its officers
Summary of this case from Martin v. HolloranOpinion
No. 12168.
Argued May 17, 1957.
Decided May 31, 1957.
Herman P. Abramson, Philadelphia, Pa. (Maurice Abrams, Philadelphia, on the brief), for appellant.
Thomson F. Edwards, Philadelphia, Pa. (Benjamin O. Frick, Pepper, Bodine, Frick, Scheetz Hamilton, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and SORG, District Judge.
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.