Diamond v. Mendelsohn

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Diamond v. Mendelsohn

132 N.Y.S. 770

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 132 N.Y.S. 770 (Diamond v. Mendelsohn) 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

Diamond v. Mendelsohn, 132 N.Y.S. 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages for defendants’ alleged breach of a contract of employment. The contract was in writing, and the plaintiff claimed that he was discharged without cause by the defendants. The contract provided as follows:

“It is also agreed and understood that said Jacob Diamond [plaintiff] shall perform the duties of foreman competently and energetically, to the best of his abilities and complete satisfaction of his employers, said Messrs. Mendelsohn and Sehlang.”

Under this contract the plaintiff agreed to perform his duties to the complete satisfaction of his employers, and if he failed in this he has no cause of action, even though he was discharged before the expiration of the contract. That his services were not satisfactory to his employers is made plain from the evidence in the case. Under those circumstances, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Crawford v. Mail & Express Publishing Company, 163 N. Y. 404, 57 N. E. 616; Ginsberg v. Friedman, 131 N. Y. Supp. 517.

Judgment reversed, with costs, -and complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover damages for defendants’ alleged breach of a contract of employment. The contract was in writing, and the plaintiff claimed that he was discharged without cause by the defendants. The contract provided as follows:

“It is also agreed and understood that said Jacob Diamond [plaintiff] shall perform the duties of foreman competently and energetically, to the best of his abilities and complete satisfaction of his employers, said Messrs. Mendelsohn and Sehlang.”

Under this contract the plaintiff agreed to perform his duties to the complete satisfaction of his employers, and if he failed in this he has no cause of action, even though he was discharged before the expiration of the contract. That his services were not satisfactory to his employers is made plain from the evidence in the case. Under those circumstances, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Crawford v. Mail & Express Publishing Company, 163 N. Y. 404, 57 N. E. 616; Ginsberg v. Friedman, 131 N. Y. Supp. 517.

Judgment reversed, with costs, -and complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 N.Y.S. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-v-mendelsohn-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack