Stone v. Bancroft
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court and of Commissioner Gray, and in the case of Stone v. Bancroft, 112 Cal. 542. Edward J. McCutchen, Page, McCutchen & Eells, and Page, McCutchen, Harding & Knight, for Appellant.
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court and of Commissioner Gray, and in the case of Stone v. Bancroft, 112 Cal. 542. Edward J. McCutchen, Page, McCutchen & Eells, and Page, McCutchen, Harding & Knight, for Appellant. The acts of the parties were inconsistent with the continuance of the relation of employer and employee, and show a repudiation and termination of the contract, after which Stone could have no claim for wages, but only for damages for breach of the contract. (Arnold v. Adams, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1041; Coy v. Martin, 51 N. Y. Supp. 962; Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362; Perry v.…
1Opinion of the Court
This action is brought to recover upon a written contract for seven months' salary, at the rate of $350 per month, commencing September 1, 1893. The plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for the full amount claimed, and the defendant appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. This court in department having affirmed such judgment and order, a rehearing was granted. The contract upon which this action is commenced is the same one involved in a former action brought by this plaintiff against this defendant for salary for a former period of service, in which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stone v. BancroftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hancock v. Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Haviland v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Ross v. Board of EducationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Gibbs v. WhelanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
- Payne v. Pathe Studios, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1935
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.