Atkinson v. Singer Manuf'g Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Atkinson v. Singer Manuf'g Co.

35 N.Y.S. 117, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 491

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedAugust 22, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 N.Y.S. 117 (Atkinson v. Singer Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkinson v. Singer Manuf'g Co., 35 N.Y.S. 117, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 491 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

This action was brought to recover back $75 which the respondent had deposited as security for, the honest performance by him of his duties as employé of the appellant. The record shows that he left their employment, by mutual consent, on the 9th day of February, and this action was begun on the 12th day of the same month and year. There was a strenuous contest between the parties, upon the trial, as to whether the agreement was that a period of 60 or 90 days must elapse, after the termination of the employment, before the deposit was to be returned. The appel[118]*118lant now urges that the action was prematurely brought, in either event; but this objection was not made upon the trial. In fact, the attention of the court was called away from it by a conflict over a point that was really immaterial. Under the circumstances, we do not feel bound to consider the objection upon appeal, especially as it does not appear that injustice has resulted.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GIEGERICH, J.

This action was brought to recover back $75 which the respondent had deposited as security for, the honest performance by him of his duties as employé of the appellant. The record shows that he left their employment, by mutual consent, on the 9th day of February, and this action was begun on the 12th day of the same month and year. There was a strenuous contest between the parties, upon the trial, as to whether the agreement was that a period of 60 or 90 days must elapse, after the termination of the employment, before the deposit was to be returned. The appel[118]*118lant now urges that the action was prematurely brought, in either event; but this objection was not made upon the trial. In fact, the attention of the court was called away from it by a conflict over a point that was really immaterial. Under the circumstances, we do not feel bound to consider the objection upon appeal, especially as it does not appear that injustice has resulted.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.Y.S. 117, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-singer-manufg-co-nyctcompl-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack