Flannery v. McLean

City of New York Municipal Court

Flannery v. McLean

13 Misc. 777, 34 N.Y.S. 1139, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 871

DecidedJune 15, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Misc. 777 (Flannery v. McLean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flannery v. McLean, 13 Misc. 777, 34 N.Y.S. 1139, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 871 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Wyck, J.

The plaintiff’s contention, by pleading and proof, was his employment by defendant for term of one year and wrongful discharge before end of term, while defendant admitted such employment and discharge before expiration of term, but contended that such discharge was for just cause. This question, under the proof, as to whether such discharge was wrongful or rightful, was properly left for the jury to determine, and they answered that it was wrongful, by returning verdict for plaintiff, and such verdict was justi[778]*778fied by the proof and will not be disturbed here. The-defendant took only two exceptions — one to denial of his motion for nonsuit, and the other to an overruled objection to a question by plaintiff at folio 84 — which, was, however, properly allowed, and, moreover, was merely a repetition by plaintiff’s counsel of the witness’ answer to a previous question to which no objection was made. The order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Newburger and Conlan, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Van Wyck, J.

The plaintiff’s contention, by pleading and proof, was his employment by defendant for term of one year and wrongful discharge before end of term, while defendant admitted such employment and discharge before expiration of term, but contended that such discharge was for just cause. This question, under the proof, as to whether such discharge was wrongful or rightful, was properly left for the jury to determine, and they answered that it was wrongful, by returning verdict for plaintiff, and such verdict was justi[778]*778fied by the proof and will not be disturbed here. The-defendant took only two exceptions — one to denial of his motion for nonsuit, and the other to an overruled objection to a question by plaintiff at folio 84 — which, was, however, properly allowed, and, moreover, was merely a repetition by plaintiff’s counsel of the witness’ answer to a previous question to which no objection was made. The order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

Newburger and Conlan, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 777, 34 N.Y.S. 1139, 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flannery-v-mclean-nynyccityct-1895.