Malickson v. Louis J. Bergdoll Motor Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 222, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 2,240, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Philip S. Malickson v. Louis J. Bergdoll Motor Company. Assumpsit for salary. Before Staples, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 222, Oct. T., 1912, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1911, No. 2,240, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Philip S. Malickson v. Louis J. Bergdoll Motor Company. Assumpsit for salary. Before Staples, P. J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. The court charged in part as follows: [You have heard the testimony upon the part of the plaintiff (it is his own testimony and that of Mr. Johnson), as to how he performed the duties of this position under that contract.] [8] He stated that he did all that he could do in the line of his…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
It is a conceded fact that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to employ the latter as general purchasing manager for one year from March 1, 1911, at a salary of $3,500, payable in equal weekly installments and that on the seventeenth of the following May the plaintiff was discharged from further service. This discharge was against the plaintiff’s objection and when the contract and discharge were proved a prima facie case for the plaintiff was made out. The burden was then shifted to the defendant to show that the plaintiff had failed to perform…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Emery v. SteckelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
- Ulrich v. HowerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893