Knipp v. Harris
Knipp v. Harris
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
We think that under the contract plaintiff was employed from year to year. His employment could only be terminated by two months’ notice prior to the expiration of any year. This method of terminating the contract was open to defendants at the end of the first year had it been adopted, but, failing to avail themselves of this privilege, they were bound to continue the employment for another year, or abide the consequences.
The method of arriving at the verdict was right, and, though the trial judge reached his conclusion, as expressed in his instructions to the jury, from a slightly different construction of the contract than that here announced, the result is the same.
The .judgment, therefore, is affirmed with costs.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- KNIPP v. HARRIS
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Contracts; Master and Servant; Damages. Where a contract of employment at a specified rate per week provides that it shall continue in full force from year to year, provided that after the first year it may be terminated by either party by notice to take effect at the end of any year and to be given not less than two months prior to such end of the year, it is a contract of employment from year to year; and where the employer discharges the employee four days before the expiration of the first year, he is liable in damages for the loss sustained by the employee during the second year, the measure of which is the weekly rate of compensation provided for by the contract, during unemployment, and the difference between that rate and the compensation actually received, while employed. Note. — On duration of contract of hiring which specifies no term, but fixes compensation at a certain amount per day, week, month, or year, see notes in 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 529, and 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 620. On remedy of wrongfully discharged servant by action for damages for breach of contract, see note in 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 50.