Townsend

This is an appeal from a judgment of $2530.25 in favor of appellee for the breach of an employment contract involving only California law.

The facts disclose that the appellant was constructing a new pulp mill at Antioch, California, and was in need of about three hundred experienced pulp mill workers. It advertised in a southern trade paper seeking applicants.

Appellee who resided in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, answered the advertisement and applied for one of the jobs stating that he had twenty years experience in “Kraft pulp mill work”; that he had served as recovery plant foreman and tour foreman for nine years. He further stated he was married and his family consisted of a wife and three daughters.

On September 1, 1948, appellant provided appellee with a regular application for employment form to fill out and at the same time advised him that he could be reasonably assured that ihere would be some position available to him. After appellee filled out the application form on October 18, 1948, he called Mr. Lindlcy, plant manager of the appellant, who at the time told him, in the words of appellee: “He tell me that if I wanted a position out there that they would place me in one…

(concurring specially) .

I am in agreement with the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion, and with most that is said therein. I think I should reserve judgment as to the first reason advanced by the opinion for the non-application of the Statute of Frauds.

The trial court, following the rule stated in Millsap v. National Funding Corp., 57 Cal.App.2d 772 , 135 P.2d 407 , has held that under the facts of this particular case, Fibreboard and Townsend entered into a contract of employment whereby the latter was entitled to employment for a reasonable period of time, and that under the circumstances, such employment must be taken to be for a period of two years. Thus the district court has held that on the facts of this particular case there was a contract of employment for a reasonable time, to-wit, two years.

I have difficulty in reasoning how this can be in fact a contract for employment for a period of two years and yet not come within the provisions of the California Statute of Frauds relating to contracts not to be performed within a year. I apprehend that in some states a contract for permanent employment, where supported by consideration, is construed to be an…

202 F.2d 180 FIBREBOARD PRODUCTS, Inc. v. TOWNSEND. No. 13,141. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. February 2, 1953. Rehearing Denied March 10, 1953. 1 T. R. Meyer, Samuel L. Holmes and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. 2 C. K. Curtright, Sacramento, Cal., and Charles R. Garry, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before HEALY and POPE, Circuit Judges, and HARRISON, District Judge. 4 HARRISON, District Judge. 5 This is an appeal from a judgment of $2530.25 in favor of appellee for the breach of an employment contract involving only California law. 1 6 The facts disclose that the appellant was constructing a new pulp mill at Antioch, California, and was in need of about three hundred experienced pulp mill workers. It advertised in a southern trade paper seeking applicants. 7 Appellee who resided in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, answered the advertisement and applied for one of the jobs stating that he had twenty years experience in "Kraft pulp mill work"; that he had served as recovery plant foreman and tour foreman for nine years. He further stated he was married and his family consisted of a wife and three daughters. 8 On September 1, 1948,…