Bormann v. Thiele, Motz & Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bormann v. Thiele, Motz & Co.

23 La. Ann. 495

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 15, 1871

DocketNo. 2348

StatusPublished

This text of 23 La. Ann. 495 (Bormann v. Thiele, Motz & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bormann v. Thiele, Motz & Co., 23 La. Ann. 495 (La. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Howell, J.

This ease presents the questions of fact, whether or not plaintiff was employed as clerk by the year, and defendants had good cause to discharge him.

After an examination of the evidence, we concur in the conclusion of tho district judge, that lie was so employed, and that lie was discharged without sufficient 'cause.

The positive testimony of plaintiff, as to the term of the engagement is supported by the letter of the defendants, informing him. of their decision to reduce his salary from $1500 to $1000 per annum, which also shows that the only reason for this reduction was to curtail expenses. Because of plaintiff’s refusal to acquiesce therein, he was discharged.

This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider the hills of exception in the record.'

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Howell, J.

This ease presents the questions of fact, whether or not plaintiff was employed as clerk by the year, and defendants had good cause to discharge him.

After an examination of the evidence, we concur in the conclusion of tho district judge, that lie was so employed, and that lie was discharged without sufficient 'cause.

The positive testimony of plaintiff, as to the term of the engagement is supported by the letter of the defendants, informing him. of their decision to reduce his salary from $1500 to $1000 per annum, which also shows that the only reason for this reduction was to curtail expenses. Because of plaintiff’s refusal to acquiesce therein, he was discharged.

This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider the hills of exception in the record.'

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 La. Ann. 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bormann-v-thiele-motz-co-la-1871.