Griffith v. Griffith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Griffith v. Griffith

256 A.D. 1009, 10 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5871

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1009 (Griffith v. Griffith) 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

Griffith v. Griffith, 256 A.D. 1009, 10 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment and order of the Supreme Court, Albany county, denying the motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict of the jury and for a new trial, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff, with costs in favor of the defendant. The action is for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges in substance that on the 23d of March, 1922, he and defendant entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff was employed as superintendent of defendant’s farms for which he was to receive seventy-five dollars per month in addition to his board and lodging and that by the terms of the contract he earned $13,275; that defendant paid Mm $3,114.47, leaving a balance due of $10,160.53. The defendant denied plaintiff’s claim. The case involved merely questions of fact wMeh the jury has resolved in defendant’s favor. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present —■ Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment and order of the Supreme Court, Albany county, denying the motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict of the jury and for a new trial, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff, with costs in favor of the defendant. The action is for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges in substance that on the 23d of March, 1922, he and defendant entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff was employed as superintendent of defendant’s farms for which he was to receive seventy-five dollars per month in addition to his board and lodging and that by the terms of the contract he earned $13,275; that defendant paid Mm $3,114.47, leaving a balance due of $10,160.53. The defendant denied plaintiff’s claim. The case involved merely questions of fact wMeh the jury has resolved in defendant’s favor. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present —■ Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1009, 10 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-griffith-nyappdiv-1939.