
    Thomas Allen v. Joseph Whitlark.
    
      Contract — Master and servant — Wrongful discharge — Damages— , Burden of proof.
    
    In an action by a servant to' recover damages for his wrongful discharge, the burden of proof is upon the master „to show what, if any, effort was made by the servant to obtain employment during the remainder of the period for which he was hired; citing Farrell v. School-District, 98 Mich. 43.
    Error to Washtenaw. (Kinne, J.)
    Argued February 16, 1894.
    Decided March 27, 1894.
    
      
      Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
    Judgment of circuit court on certiorari reversed, and judgment of the justice’s court, in favor of the plaintiff, affirmed.
    The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
    
      F. F. Johnson, for appellant.
    
      Thompson, Harriman & Thompson, for defendant.
   Hooker, J.

The only question in this case is whether the burden of proof is upon plaintiff or defendant to show what, if any, effort was made by a wrongfully discharged servant to obtain employment during the remainder of the period for which he was hired, in a case where the servant brings an action for breach of the contract. The case is ruled by Farrell v. School-District, 98 Mich. 43, which holds that it is upon the defendant.

The judgment of the circuit court will be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed, with costs of all courts.

McGrath, C. J., Grant and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.  