Butler v. R. P. Bolton Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. R. P. Bolton Co.

143 N.Y.S. 1035

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 143 N.Y.S. 1035 (Butler v. R. P. Bolton Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Butler v. R. P. Bolton Co., 143 N.Y.S. 1035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for breach of a contract of employment. He testified that while in the employ of defendant, apparently on a weekly arrangement, he had a talk with the president of the defendant on June 30,1911, at which the following conversation occurred:

“Mr. Bolton said: ‘Butler, I don’t want to lose you. We are very busy here. I am glad I got you back. I have got a year’s work for you to do, and [1036]*1036I want you to do it.’ I said: ‘Mr. Bolton, if you tell me to stay,’ I said, ‘your word is' good enough for me. I will stick. I will turn down this other proposition.’ Mr. -Bolton said: ‘I want you to stay. We are busy, and we have-got this year’s work. You are the man to do it, and I want you to do it’ ”

He further testified that the salary “was to be the same as before,”1 namely, $40 per week. A few days later, July 5, 1911, plaintiff, on learning from the vice president, during the absence of. the president, that he was to be discharged, wrote Mr. Bolton a letter, in which he said, among other things:

“On Saturday we had a little talk together, and as above stated I gathered, that you wanted me to stay wit-h you. * * * Now, as you asked me not to do anything until you returned, and I promised not to, I do not relish being pitched out by the heels so summarily.” -

The motion to dismiss was made on the ground that “upon the-plaintiff’s own written admission and sworn testimony there was npevidence of any contract being in existence on June 30th,” and the-written admission is specified as being the letter of July 5th, to which I have referred. It seems to me that the plaintiff gave ample evidence of an oral agreement of employment for a year, and that the significance of an admission to the contrary in his letter of July 5, 1911, if such it be, was a matter to be determined by the jury.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for breach of a contract of employment. He testified that while in the employ of defendant, apparently on a weekly arrangement, he had a talk with the president of the defendant on June 30,1911, at which the following conversation occurred:

“Mr. Bolton said: ‘Butler, I don’t want to lose you. We are very busy here. I am glad I got you back. I have got a year’s work for you to do, and [1036]*1036I want you to do it.’ I said: ‘Mr. Bolton, if you tell me to stay,’ I said, ‘your word is' good enough for me. I will stick. I will turn down this other proposition.’ Mr. -Bolton said: ‘I want you to stay. We are busy, and we have-got this year’s work. You are the man to do it, and I want you to do it’ ”

He further testified that the salary “was to be the same as before,”1 namely, $40 per week. A few days later, July 5, 1911, plaintiff, on learning from the vice president, during the absence of. the president, that he was to be discharged, wrote Mr. Bolton a letter, in which he said, among other things:

“On Saturday we had a little talk together, and as above stated I gathered, that you wanted me to stay wit-h you. * * * Now, as you asked me not to do anything until you returned, and I promised not to, I do not relish being pitched out by the heels so summarily.” -

The motion to dismiss was made on the ground that “upon the-plaintiff’s own written admission and sworn testimony there was npevidence of any contract being in existence on June 30th,” and the-written admission is specified as being the letter of July 5th, to which I have referred. It seems to me that the plaintiff gave ample evidence of an oral agreement of employment for a year, and that the significance of an admission to the contrary in his letter of July 5, 1911, if such it be, was a matter to be determined by the jury.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 N.Y.S. 1035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-r-p-bolton-co-nyappterm-1913.