Freeman v. Goldstein

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Freeman v. Goldstein

99 N.Y.S. 395

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 1, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 99 N.Y.S. 395 (Freeman v. Goldstein) 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

Freeman v. Goldstein, 99 N.Y.S. 395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony showed an express contract of employment for the period between September, 1905, and the following Christmas at $15 a week, and that he was wrongfully discharged on October 16, 1905. He also gave testimony showing that he succeeded in getting employment elsewhere and thus reducing his damages. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and this motion was granted. The plaintiff made a case for the jury, and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s uncontradicted testimony showed an express contract of employment for the period between September, 1905, and the following Christmas at $15 a week, and that he was wrongfully discharged on October 16, 1905. He also gave testimony showing that he succeeded in getting employment elsewhere and thus reducing his damages. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and this motion was granted. The plaintiff made a case for the jury, and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.Y.S. 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-goldstein-nyappterm-1906.