Adams v. Fitzpatrick
This text of 24 Jones & S. 580 (Adams v. Fitzpatrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The prior employment was at a fixed salary, and as the services continued beyond the period fixed by the original contract the presumption is that the salary was at the same rate. Vail v. Jersey L. F. M. Co., 32 Barb. 567; Ross v. Hardin, 79 N. Y. 84.
On the facts there is no legal presumption that the second contract of service was for the same period of time as the first.
In cases where an employment is continued immediately after the performance of a prior contract of service of the same kind for a term longer than one year, the law implies a second employment for the term of one year, unless of course there is something in the circumstances of the case which overcomes this implication; Greer v. Peoples’ Telephone &c. Co., 50 Super. Ct. 517.
The appellant at the trial took another exception than that alluded to above, and presented it in his points. The exception has been examined and no error is found to have been made by the referee.
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 Jones & S. 580, 23 N.Y. St. Rep. 203, 56 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-fitzpatrick-nysuperctnyc-1889.