TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bowman v. Fidelity Trust & Development Co.

G. A. P. BOWMAN v. FIDELITY TRUST AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Et Al.

Bowman v. Fid. Trust & Dev. Co., 87 S.E. 46 (N.C. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 1, 1915
Judges
Hoke
Citations
87 S.E. 46170 N.C. 3011915 N.C. LEXIS 389
Cited by 2
Headnotes
Instructions — Contract—Breach—Testimony of One Witness. Where suit, is entered for damages for breach of a contract of employment for a year, against a corporation which denies liability on the-ground that the contract had been terminated by the mutual consent or agreement of the parties, it is reversible error for the trial judge to charge the jury that if they believed the testimony of an officer of the-company, which was capable of the construction that the defendant had wrongfully breached its contract, to find the issue in plaintiff’s favor, there being other evidence in behalf of the defendant’s contention.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from Bountree, J., at May Term, 1915, of New HaNOVER. Civil action. There was allegation, with evidence, on the part of plaintiff, that in May, 1912, be entered into a contract for a year’s service in insurance work for defendant' company at a specified compensation; that be was wrongfully discharged during the continuance of the contract, and, having waited till the year expired, sued for damages for breach, to wit, the contract amount, less amount earned by him during the year, etc. Defendant denied a breach of the contract and alleged, further, that the contract between the parties had been voluntarily surrendered and canceled and all rights growing out of same satisfactorily adjusted, and offered evidence to support its position. On issues submitted the jury rendered the following verdict: 1. Did the defendant break its contract with the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes. 2. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $3,600, minus $1,750; net, $1,850. Judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hoke

Hoke, J.

In the charge of his Honor on the first issue, he said, among other things: “The court charges you that if you believe the evidence of Mr. Chadwick, who is an officer of the company, familiar with its affairs, you will answer that issue ‘Yes,’ irrespective of the testimony of the plaintiff, who also says that the contract was breached by the defendant.”

Again, after a very careful statement of. the position of the parties plaintiff and defendant on the other features of the case, he says: “Remember the court charges you if you believe Chadwick’s testimony, you will answer the first issue ‘Yes,’ ” etc. True, this witness, Chadwick, was an officer of defendant company and had testified in its behalf, but, in our opinion, while the permissible, it is not at all the necessary interpretation of the witness’s testimony that there had been a wrongful breach of the contract on the part of the defendant. Some portions of his testimony are capable of the construction that the contract had been surrendered and canceled by mutual consent of the parties, as defendant contended. Apart from this, there were other -witnesses who testified for defendant, and their statements tended to show there had beep no wrongful breach of the contract within the meaning of the issue, and in singling out this witness and making the case depend in this way on his *303 evidence alone, we are of opinion that, under our decisions, the charge, in this respect, should be held reversible error.

Cogdell v. R. R., 129 N. C., 398 ;

Long v. Hall, 286-293;

Jackson v. Comrs., 76 N. C., 282 ;

Anderson v. Steamboat Co., 64 N. C., 399 .

This will be certified, that the cause may be submitted to another jury.

New trial.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →
1936: 11938: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Rhinehart183 S.E. 388 (N.C. 1936)
  2. Halsey v. Snell198 S.E. 633 (N.C. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Halsey v. Snell198 S.E. 633 (N.C. 1938)
  2. State v. Rhinehart183 S.E. 388 (N.C. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Anderson v. Cape Fear Steamboat Co., 64 N.C. 399 (1870) 20
Cogdell v. Southern Ry. Co., 40 S.E. 202 (N.C. 1901) 15
Jackson v. Comm'rs of Greene Cnty., 76 N.C. 282 (1877) 14

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list