Malever v. Kay Jewelry Co.
25 S.E.2d 436
N.C.
1943
Check Treatment
Stacy, C. J.

Tbе question for decision is whether tbe agreement to give tbe plаintiff “a regular permanent job” in tbe defendant’s ‍‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‍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.

While it is suggested in plaintiff’s testimony tbat tbe inducement to givе up bis job in Fayetteville was sufficiеnt consideration to suppоrt tbe agreement for permanent employment, still tbe agreеment itself is for no definite time, and thеre 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. Conversеly, it is suggested tbe moving cause of plaintiff’s acceptance was bis desire to be in Charlotte with bis fаmily, which more tban outweighed tbe difference in pay. He was emрloyed until tbe defendant closed bis store. 35 Am. Jur., 461.

Tbe 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 оf exceptional efforts on tbe ‍‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‍part of tbe plaintiff, was to give him “permanent employmеnt for tbe term of at least ten years.” 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 agreеments to give employment for life in settlement of ‍‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‍personal injury сlaims, controlling on tbe facts оf tbe instant record.

Tbe generаl rule is, tbat “permanent employment” means steady employmеnt, a steady job, a position оf some permanence, as contrasted with a temporary employment or a tempоrary ‍‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‍job. Ordinarily, where there is no additional expression as to durаtion, a contract for permanent employment implies an indefinite general hiring, terminable аt 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.

We find nothing on tbe record to take tbe case out of tbe general rule.

Affirmed.