The authorities are not in agreement on the question whether, in a case involving the discharge of an employee who has been employed under an employment contract, the employer has the burden to allege and prove as an affirmative defense either the nonperformance of the contract by the employee or that the employer had good cause for discharging him. See McKelvy v. Choctaw Cotton Oil Co., 72 Okla. 74, 178 P. 882, 883 (1919); Kenney v. Spicer Furniture Company, 71 Ohio L Abs 321, 131 N.E.2d 265, 271 (Ct App 1954). Cf. Seelman v. Farmers' Co-operative Co., 181 Iowa 1228, 165 N.W. 311, 312 (1917); Jacobus v.Wood, 84 Ga. 638, 10 S.E. 1099 (1890); Johnson v. Jessop, 332 Mich. 501, 51 N.W.2d 915, 917 (1952); and Morris v. Rosenberg, 64 Wn.2d 404, 391 P.2d 975, 977 (1964). See also Quick v. Swing, 53 Or. 149, 152-53, 99 P. 418 (1909); James, Civil Procedure 141-42, § 4.7 (1965); and 3 Bancroft's Code Pleading 3052-54, §§ 1833-1834 (1926).
" Wertz v. Barnard, 32 Okla. 426, 122 P. 649. See, also, McKelvy v. Choctaw Cotton Oil Co., 72 Okla. 74, 178 P. 882; Equels, Admx., v. Tulsa City Lines, Inc., 194 Okla. 79, 147 P.2d 460; Schofield v. City of Tulsa, 111 Okla. 220, 239 P. 236. Plaintiff next argues that the court erred in giving the following instruction:
Plaintiff further contends that the court erred in refusing a certain instruction requested by her. This instruction relates to the measure of damages, and the jury having found against plaintiff as to the existence of the marriage agreement, the question of the measure of damages becomes immaterial and the judgment will not be reversed because of the refusal of the court to give the same. Martin v. C., R.I. P. Ry. 7 Okla. 452, 54 P. 696; McKelvy v. Choctaw Cotton Oil Co., 72 Okla. 74, 178 P. 882. In the latter case the court held that where, in an action for breach of the contract, the jury finds in favor of defendant on the issue as to whether there was a breach, the giving of an erroneous instruction as to the measure of damages does not constitute reversible error.
eneral hiring, terminable at the will of either party. Lord v. Goldberg, 81 Cal., 596, 22 P., 1126, 1128, 15 Am. St. Rep., 82; Shuler v. Corl, 39 Cal.App., 195, 178 P., 535; Bentley v. Smith, 3 Ga. App. 242, 59 S.E., 720, 722; Speeder Cycle Co. v. Teeter, 18 Ind. App. 474, 48 N.E., 595; Faulkner v. Des MoinesDrug Co., 117 Iowa, 120, 90 N.W., 585; Perry v. Wheeler, 12 Bush (Ky.), 541; Louisville N.R. Co. v. Offutt, 99 Ky., 427, 36 S.W. 181, 59 Am. St. Rep., 467; YellowPoplar Lumber Co. v. Rule, 106 Ky., 455, 50 S.W. 685; Rape v. Mobile O.R. Co., 136 Miss., 38, 100 So., 585, 35 A.L.R., 1422; Sullivan v. Detroit, Y. A.A.R. Co., 135 Mich., 161, 98 N.W., 756, 64 L.R.A., 673, 106 Am. St. Rep., 403; Bolles v. Sachs, 37 Minn., 315, 33 N.W., 862; Minter v. Tootle, Campbell Dry Goods Co., 187 Mo. App. 16, 173 S.W. 4; Arentz v. Morse, etc., Co., 249 N. Y., 439, 164 N.E., 342, 344, 62 A.L.R., 231; Bird v. J.L.Prescott Co., 89 N.J. Law, 591, 99 A., 380; Milner v. Hill, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. R., 663; McKelvy v. Choctaw Cotton OilCo., 72 Okla. 74, 178 P., 882; Hickey v. Kiam (Tex.Civ.App.), 83 S.W. 716. Thus, in Bentley v. Smith (Ga.), supra, the Court stated the rule as follows: "A contract for permanent employment has been held to be a contract to continue indefinitely, and terminable at any time by either of the parties."