{ "id": 8556400, "name": "TERESA STOUT TATUM v. ROYALL BROWN, SR., Individually and as Agent of the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, and THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Tatum v. Brown", "decision_date": "1976-05-19", "docket_number": "No. 7621DC39", "first_page": "504", "last_page": "505", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 N.C. App. 504" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "221 S.E. 2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566728 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566604 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0254-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 235, "char_count": 3556, "ocr_confidence": 0.624, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.175970090483453e-07, "percentile": 0.8642252888102743 }, "sha256": "eb29e35e46c47acb9883eae7f2806f3880950377d83c1250df8cd94e2ca591ef", "simhash": "1:19e20d23451386e7", "word_count": 595 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "TERESA STOUT TATUM v. ROYALL BROWN, SR., Individually and as Agent of the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, and THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPlaintiff\u2019s contention in this appeal is that the motion to dismiss was improperly granted. Defendant\u2019s position is that plaintiff alleged a contract of employment at will, and that her allegations, taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, give rise to no claim upon which relief can be granted. We agree with defendant\u2019s position.\nWhere a contract of employment contains no provision concerning the duration or term of employment, or the means by which it may be terminated, it is terminable at the will of either party, with or without cause. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E. 2d 403 (1971) ; 5 N. C. Index 2d, Master and Servant, \u00a7 10, p. 327. There is no allegation in the instant case concerning the duration or means of termination of the employment. It therefore appears as a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief. Even though there may be merit in her allegations plaintiff does not stake a claim upon which relief can be granted. The action was not improperly dismissed. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 221 S.E. 2d 282 (1976).\nWe also agree with defendant\u2019s position that the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in this action for breach of employment contract.\nThe order of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "H. Glenn Pettyjohn for plaintiff appellant.", "Hudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, by J. Robert Elster and W. Thompson Comerford, Jr., for defendant ap-pellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TERESA STOUT TATUM v. ROYALL BROWN, SR., Individually and as Agent of the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, and THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY\nNo. 7621DC39\n(Filed 19 May 1976)\n1. Master and Servant \u00a7 10 \u2014 \u2022 employment contract \u2014 duration\nWhen a contract of employment contains no provision concerning the duration or term of employment or the means by which it may be terminated, it is terminable at the will of either party.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 10\u2014 breach of contract to employ \u2014 insufficiency of complaint\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint failed to state a claim for relief where she alleged that she applied for a job with defendant at a certain salary, the job was to be a long term career, defendant notified her that she had the job and directed her to give her present employer notice of termination, plaintiff gave such notice, and defendant then revoked his offer Of the job, there being no allegation concerning the duration or means of termination of the employment.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Leonard, Judge. Judgment entered 4 December 1975 in District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 May 1976.\nPlaintiff alleged that she had been employed for six years by Integon Insurance Corporation earning $545 per month. On 26 June 1975, in response to an advertisement, she applied for a position with defendant which would earn her $625 per month and employment was to be permanent and a \u201clong term career.\u201d On 30 June 1975 defendant notified plaintiff that she had the job, and, it is alleged, defendant directed plaintiff to give notice of termination to her present employer so she could begin her duties with defendant on 14 July 1975. Plaintiff relied upon defendant\u2019s promise and gave notice to Integon on 30 June 1975, and on 10 July 1975 defendant revoked\u2019 his offer.\nAction was instituted by plaintiff to recover the salary promised her until such time as she located comparable employment. The court granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and plaintiff appealed.\nH. Glenn Pettyjohn for plaintiff appellant.\nHudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, by J. Robert Elster and W. Thompson Comerford, Jr., for defendant ap-pellees." }, "file_name": "0504-01", "first_page_order": 536, "last_page_order": 537 }