Ehlers

Ehlers v. Langley & Michaels Co.

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 370·72 Cal. App. 214·237 P. 55
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 1925Docket No. 4743.California2,475 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Knight, J.

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant corporation, was dismissed from his employment without notice, and later brought this action to recover the amount of salary and commissions accruing during the thirty-day period following his discharge, contending that such summary dismissal was in violation of the express terms of the contract of employment, which he claims required a thirty-day notice to be given before the employment thereunder could be terminated. The action was tried by a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the- sum of $814.57, that being the amount of salary and commissions plaintiff would have received if he had _been allowed to remain in such employment for the additional thirty days. Judgment was entered upon said verdict and defendant appeals.

The contract of employment was made up of certain letters which passed between the parties. Those letters were afterward lost or destroyed and, consequently, the terms of the contract were established by secondary evidence. Appellant concedes that the evidence adduced at the trial in relation to the contents of said letters was conflicting and for that reason has not urged on this appeal the point…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.