Butler v. Surprise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. Surprise

251 A.D. 770, 295 N.Y.S. 597, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7439

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D. 770 (Butler v. Surprise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State 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. Surprise, 251 A.D. 770, 295 N.Y.S. 597, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants appeal from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court denying their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a school teacher, was engaged by defendant to teach in the public schools of the district in which defendants were trustees for the school term of thirty-eight weeks to begin September 4, 1934. The contract provided that the compensation of plaintiff should be subject to change dependent upon State aid. During the term of the employment State aid was increased approximately thirty-two per cent over the previous year. Plaintiff brought his action to recover the additional sum. The Special Term held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the action. The holding is correct. (Lorenz v. Board of Education, 264 N. Y. 591; Matter of O’Connor v. Emerson, 196 App. Div. 807.) Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — HUI, P, J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ,

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

Defendants appeal from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court denying their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action. The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a school teacher, was engaged by defendant to teach in the public schools of the district in which defendants were trustees for the school term of thirty-eight weeks to begin September 4, 1934. The contract provided that the compensation of plaintiff should be subject to change dependent upon State aid. During the term of the employment State aid was increased approximately thirty-two per cent over the previous year. Plaintiff brought his action to recover the additional sum. The Special Term held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the action. The holding is correct. (Lorenz v. Board of Education, 264 N. Y. 591; Matter of O’Connor v. Emerson, 196 App. Div. 807.) Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — HUI, P, J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D. 770, 295 N.Y.S. 597, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-surprise-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack