Mangson v. Hedin

Appellate Court of Illinois

Mangson v. Hedin

63 Ill. App. 20, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 899

DecidedMarch 3, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 63 Ill. App. 20 (Mangson v. Hedin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mangson v. Hedin, 63 Ill. App. 20, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 899 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case appellee contended that on January 15, 1891, appellant employed him to act as foreman of appellant’s planing mill, at a salary of $1,300 per year; that appellee continued to work for appellant until August 19,1891, when appellant, as appellee claims, without just cause, wrongfully discharged him. Appellee declared specially upon the foregoing contract, and filed, also, the common counts. To this declaration appellant pleaded the general issue and two special pleas, one being a plea of set-off and the other setting up a judgment entered in the justice court of James H. Doyle, in a case betwéen the parties to this suit, and alleging the cause of action in the justice court is the same as the cause of action in the present case.

The bill of exceptions fails to show that it contains all the evidence presented upon the trial. It is therefore to be presumed that there was evidence not shown by the bill of exceptions which justifies the finding and judgment.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case appellee contended that on January 15, 1891, appellant employed him to act as foreman of appellant’s planing mill, at a salary of $1,300 per year; that appellee continued to work for appellant until August 19,1891, when appellant, as appellee claims, without just cause, wrongfully discharged him. Appellee declared specially upon the foregoing contract, and filed, also, the common counts. To this declaration appellant pleaded the general issue and two special pleas, one being a plea of set-off and the other setting up a judgment entered in the justice court of James H. Doyle, in a case betwéen the parties to this suit, and alleging the cause of action in the justice court is the same as the cause of action in the present case.

The bill of exceptions fails to show that it contains all the evidence presented upon the trial. It is therefore to be presumed that there was evidence not shown by the bill of exceptions which justifies the finding and judgment.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Ill. App. 20, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangson-v-hedin-illappct-1896.