Carlson v. Albert

117 A.D. 836, 102 N.Y.S. 944, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 358
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 1907·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The complaint contains two causes of action, viz., one for the amount due tó the plaintiff on his contract of service for a year at the time of its breach by his discharge by the defendant, and the other for the damages caused by the breach. They are not one [837] cause of. action; the test is that a recovery on one of them would not bar an action on the other (Perry v. Dickerson, 85 N. Y. 345). The order should be reversed and the motion granted.

Woodward, Jenics and Bioh, JJ., concurred.

Order of. the County Court of Kings county reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.

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

Carlson v. Albert, 117 A.D. 836, 102 N.Y.S. 944, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

117 A.D. 836 (Carlson v. Albert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clark v. Bee Line, Inc.
271 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1946)
Lyon v. Israel
249 A.D. 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Brooklyn National Bank v. Werblow
235 A.D. 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Joy v. Urban Motion Picture Industries, Inc.
207 A.D. 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Agett v. Federal Telephone & Telegraph Co.
160 N.Y.S. 843 (New York Supreme Court, 1916)
Raftery v. Carter
162 A.D. 17 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)