Boyce v. Smith-Edwards-Dunlap Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying rationale of Krauss to affirmative claim by employer against employee
• Directed verdict that did not dispose of all claims and parties was not a final appealable order
• “[o]ne part of a contract should not be interpreted so as to annul another part and the writings which comprise an agreement must be interpreted as a whole”
• defendant that hired “a substantial number” of plaintiff’s employees was entitled to nonsuit where there was “no evidence” that it did so “in order to cripple and destroy” plaintiff rather than to obtain employees to start up its printing business
• defendant that hired “a substantial number” of plaintiff’s employees was entitled to nonsuit where there was “no evidence” that it did so “in order to cripple and destroy” plaintiff rather than to obtain employees to start up its printing business

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).