Legal Opinion

Nelichka v. Esterly

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 27, 1882PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul, a motion for a new trial having been denied.

1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.

The evidence in this case shows that plaintiff was in defendants’ employ, under an engagement to work for them for the entire month of December for $50. That plaintiff left defendants’ service on December 23d, and remained away for four days without any excuse, and not only without defendants’ consent, but in the face of their express objection, and that defendants refused to permit him to re-enter their service upon his return, is undisputed, and in fact admitted by both parties. The contract was, then, entire. The plaintiff did not perform on his part. He offers no excuse for his…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stees v. LeonardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
  2. Pinney v. FridleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
  3. Weber v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sipley v. StickneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
  2. McGrath v. CannonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. Peterson v. MayerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
  4. Johnson v. FehsefeldtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  5. Scott v. CrawfordOhio Court of Appeals · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API