Miller v. Baylis

Appellate Court of Illinois

Miller v. Baylis

185 Ill. App. 427

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 11, 1914

DocketGen. No. 18,579

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 Ill. App. 427 (Miller v. Baylis) 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

Miller v. Baylis, 185 Ill. App. 427 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Master and servant, § 47*—who has burden of proving that discharge of servant was justified. The burden of showing good and sufficient grounds for discharge rests upon the employer invoking such a defense, when the servant has proved the contract, its performance up to the time of his discharge and his readiness to perform at the time of the discharge. 4. Master and servant, § 48*—when prior contract of employment admissible in action for wrongful discharge. In an action for breach of contract of employment by wrongful discharge, a prior contract of employment between plaintiff and another is admissible where there is evidence that the terms of the present employment were to he determined by such contract.

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

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Master and servant, § 47*—who has burden of proving that discharge of servant was justified. The burden of showing good and sufficient grounds for discharge rests upon the employer invoking such a defense, when the servant has proved the contract, its performance up to the time of his discharge and his readiness to perform at the time of the discharge. 4. Master and servant, § 48*—when prior contract of employment admissible in action for wrongful discharge. In an action for breach of contract of employment by wrongful discharge, a prior contract of employment between plaintiff and another is admissible where there is evidence that the terms of the present employment were to he determined by such contract.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-baylis-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack