Hart v. Bradbury

201 Ill. App. 82
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided October 13, 1915·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Master and servant, § 65*—when duty of employer to give servant notice of change in compensation. It is the duty of the employer to give the servant notice of a change in compensation after the expiration of a contract for a stipulated term and salary, so that the employee may leave if not satisfied. 4. Master and servant, § 85*—when instruction on right to recover compensation properly refused. In an action by an employee to recover wages accruing after the expiration of a contract for a stated period and salary, a requested instruction stating that if the jury believed from the evidence that plaintiff was hired for the working season of a certain year at a stipulated salary and that the working season was eight months long and no agreement was made thereafter for the succeeding years, then the jury should only allow plaintiff at the agreed rate for each working season thereafter, held erroneous, especially as it ignored the fact that plaintiff continued to work for defendant the entire year. 5. Master and servant, § 82*—when evidence as to value of services inadmissible. In an action by an employee to recover wages accruing after the expiration of a contract for a stated period and salary, where no change was made in the salary after the expiration of the term, evidence as to the value of the services rendered is inadmissible.

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

Hart v. Bradbury, 201 Ill. App. 82 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

201 Ill. App. 82 (Hart v. Bradbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Tampico Farmers Mutual Telephone Co.
74 N.E.2d 721 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1947)