Court Opinion

ID: 9451296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:12:55.296627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:39.249687
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Appellant was discharged by Armour and Company after employment of twenty-seven years. The contract of employment provided that the employment relationship might be terminated by either party without previous notice.
This action against Armour was based on two contentions. First, appellant alleges that certain promises relative to continued employment, on which he acted, were fraudulent in that they were made by Armour with the affirmative intent not to perform. Second, it is said that Armour breached an agreement to place appellant under an amended pension plan adopted subsequent to his discharge.
The court directed a verdict against appellant at the close of his case. The test to be applied on this appeal is whether under appellant’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, and with every inference therefrom given full effect, there is evidence from which the jury could have found in appellant’s favor. See Hogan v. United States, (5 Cir. 1963) 325 F.2d 276, for statement of the rule.
So tested, we find no evidence to support the charge of fraud nor was there sufficient proof to establish the claimed agreement regarding the amended pension plan. Cf. Hablas v. Armour and Company, (8 Cir. 1959) 270 F.2d 71.
Affirmed.