Styblo v. Sokol

Appellate Court of Illinois

Styblo v. Sokol

207 Ill. App. 340

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 2, 1917

DocketGen. No. 23,083

StatusPublished

This text of 207 Ill. App. 340 (Styblo v. Sokol) 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

Styblo v. Sokol, 207 Ill. App. 340 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Master and servant — when master hound hy terms of contract as to committee of supervision of work. Where a contract of employment of a physical instructor provides for the employment of a certain committee for handling and disposing of questions concerning the servant’s work, the master is bound thereby and may not require the servant to be answerable to a different committee. 3. Master and servant, § 50* — when evidence insufficient to show grounds for discharge. In an action by a servant employed as physical director of a society, held that, even though plaintiff was answerable to a special supervising committee instead of the regular committee provided by the contract, the evidence was insufficient to show a serious refusal on the part of plaintiff to appear before such committee so as to warrant his discharge.

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

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Master and servant — when master hound hy terms of contract as to committee of supervision of work. Where a contract of employment of a physical instructor provides for the employment of a certain committee for handling and disposing of questions concerning the servant’s work, the master is bound thereby and may not require the servant to be answerable to a different committee. 3. Master and servant, § 50* — when evidence insufficient to show grounds for discharge. In an action by a servant employed as physical director of a society, held that, even though plaintiff was answerable to a special supervising committee instead of the regular committee provided by the contract, the evidence was insufficient to show a serious refusal on the part of plaintiff to appear before such committee so as to warrant his discharge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/styblo-v-sokol-illappct-1917.