Cleveland v. Columbia Natl. Life Insurance

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Cleveland v. Columbia Natl. Life Insurance

127 So. 769, 13 La. App. 413, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 170

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 21, 1930

DocketNo. 13,287

StatusPublished

This text of 127 So. 769 (Cleveland v. Columbia Natl. Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cleveland v. Columbia Natl. Life Insurance, 127 So. 769, 13 La. App. 413, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 170 (La. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit by a former employee for six weeks’ salary at the rate of $35 per week, or the sum of $210. Plaintiff asserts that the defendant employed him for a period of six months, and discharged him without cause six weeks before the expiration of the term of the contract. Defendant admits the employment, but denies any specific term. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish the contract of employment sued on and, consequently, denied recovery.

We are unable to say, from our examination of the record, that the court was in error in thus disposing of the issue of fact presented.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

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

WESTERFIELD, J.

This is a suit by a former employee for six weeks’ salary at the rate of $35 per week, or the sum of $210. Plaintiff asserts that the defendant employed him for a period of six months, and discharged him without cause six weeks before the expiration of the term of the contract. Defendant admits the employment, but denies any specific term. The trial court, after hearing the evidence, concluded that plaintiff had failed to establish the contract of employment sued on and, consequently, denied recovery.

We are unable to say, from our examination of the record, that the court was in error in thus disposing of the issue of fact presented.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 769, 13 La. App. 413, 1930 La. App. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-v-columbia-natl-life-insurance-lactapp-1930.