{
  "id": 8601359,
  "name": "R. MALEVER v. KAY JEWELRY COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co.",
  "decision_date": "1943-05-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "148",
  "last_page": "149",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 N.C. 148"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "135 A. L. R., 646",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Okla., 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Okla.",
      "case_ids": [
        403904
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/okla/52/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S. E., 100",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 635",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627773
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0635-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S. E., 295",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 N. C., 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S. E., 857",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656918
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. E., 167",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 862",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8633290
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0862-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 A. L. R., 234",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 A. L. R., 1432",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 353,
    "char_count": 4988,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.803934131699036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8975722136696
    },
    "sha256": "80c784eff782d06d549615944196b41ec841f12a754cc6a836762c75894400f3",
    "simhash": "1:c4ddb92e0d6c07a5",
    "word_count": 864
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:50.990749+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. MALEVER v. KAY JEWELRY COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe question for decision is whether tbe agreement to give tbe plaintiff \u201ca regular permanent job\u201d in tbe defendant\u2019s new store means any more tban an indefinite general hiring terminable in good faith at tbe will of either party. 35 Am. Jur., 460; 39 C. J., 41.\nWhile it is suggested in plaintiff\u2019s testimony tbat tbe inducement to give up bis job in Fayetteville was sufficient consideration to support tbe agreement for permanent employment, still tbe agreement itself is for no definite time, and there is no business usage or other circumstance appearing on tbe record which would tend to give it any fixed duration. Anno. 35 A. L. R., 1432; 62 A. L. R., 234. Conversely, it is suggested tbe moving cause of plaintiff\u2019s acceptance was bis desire to be in Charlotte with bis family, which more tban outweighed tbe difference in pay. He was employed until tbe defendant closed bis store. 35 Am. Jur., 461.\nTbe case of Jones v. Light Co., 206 N. C., 862, 175 S. E., 167, cited and relied upon by tbe plaintiff, is not in point. There, tbe promise in consideration of exceptional efforts on tbe part of tbe plaintiff, was to give him \u201cpermanent employment for tbe term of at least ten years.\u201d Nor are tbe cases of Fisher v. Lumber Co., 183 N. C., 485, 111 S. E., 857, Stevens v. R. R., 187 N. C., 528, 122 S. E., 295, and Dotson v. Guano Co., 207 N. C., 635, 178 S. E., 100, where there were agreements to give employment for life in settlement of personal injury claims, controlling on tbe facts of tbe instant record.\nTbe general rule is, tbat \u201cpermanent employment\u201d means steady employment, a steady job, a position of some permanence, as contrasted with a temporary employment or a temporary job. Ordinarily, where there is no additional expression as to duration, a contract for permanent employment implies an indefinite general hiring, terminable at will. McKelvy v. Oil Co., 52 Okla., 81, 152 P., 414. Here, tbe plaintiff shows a promise of permanent employment, simpliciter, and no more. Anno., 135 A. L. R., 646.\nWe find nothing on tbe record to take tbe case out of tbe general rule.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. Laurence J ones for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. MALEVER v. KAY JEWELRY COMPANY.\n(Filed 5 May, 1943.)\n1. Contracts \u00a7 17: Master and Servant \u00a7\u00a7 1, 7a\u2014\nOrdinarily, where there is no additional expression as to duration, a contract for permanent employment implies an indefinite general hiring, as contrasted with a temporary job, terminable in good faith at the will of either party.\n2. Master and Servant \u00a7 7a: Contracts \u00a7 23\u2014\nIn an action to recover wages while out of work, where plaintiff's evidence tended to show that he gave up a steady job to accept an offer from defendant for permanent employment in a new store, without further agreement as to duration of time, no business usage or other circumstance being shown, and defendant discharging plaintiff upon closing his new store after eight weeks, judgment of nonsuit was properly allowed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Warlich, J., at February Term, 1943, of MeckleNbukg.\nCivil action for breach of contract of hire.\nThe plaintiff alleges and offered evidence tending to show that on 1 December, 1941, be received a telegram from the defendant offering him \u201ca regular permanent job\u201d at $50 a week as salesman in the defendant\u2019s new store in Charlotte. The plaintiff was then working in Fayette-ville, N. C., at a salary of $75 a week. Pursuant to instructions, the plaintiff called the defendant over long distance telephone and insisted that while he would \u201crather work for less in Charlotte and be at home with his family,\u201d if he gave up his position in Fayetteville, then paying a larger wage, he would expect a regular permanent job, saying: \u201cI want you to understand I am not taking that as a Christmas job; I want it to be permanent.\u201d The defendant replied: \u201cIt will be permanent, you have my word. . . . You have a permanent, steady place with me, just like the wire says.\u201d\nThe plaintiff worked for the defendant eight weeks, when he was discharged without cause. Plaintiff was ready, able and willing to continue his employment. There is no contention that his services were not satisfactory.\nSome time thereafter, the plaintiff secured employment in Wilmington. He sues for the weeks he was out of work.\nThe defendant testified that it was necessary to close one of his stores in Charlotte as they were operating at a loss; that he discussed the matter with the plaintiff and paid him in addition to his wages the sum of $200 in full satisfaction; that plaintiff suggested this amount: \u201cHe said, if I gave him $200 he would be perfectly satisfied and would be happy about it, and that that would be the end of it.\u201d Defendant further testified tbat be was not aware of wbat tbe plaintiff was paid in Fayetteville until tbis conversation.\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered upon consideration of all tbe evidence, tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nG. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. Laurence J ones for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0148-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 201
}