Hart v. Sherman

New York Supreme Court

Hart v. Sherman

96 Misc. 564, 160 N.Y.S. 844

DecidedSeptember 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 96 Misc. 564 (Hart v. Sherman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hart v. Sherman, 96 Misc. 564, 160 N.Y.S. 844 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Rodenbeck, J.

The question involved on the motion is the sufficiency of the allegation relating to the performance of the contract as a condition precedent. The action is for damages for the breach of a contract of employment. The defendant claims that the plaintiff has not alleged performance of conditions necessary to enable him to recover. The action is brought for a recovery in part of wages earned but chiefly for damages for a breach of the contract by reason of its termination by the defendants. An allegation of due performance under section 533 of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary where the action is brought to recover wages but is unnecessary in an action to recover for the breach of a contract. Murray v. [565]*565O’Donohue, 109 App. Div. 696. So far as the action seeks to recover wages which have been earned the allegations in the complaint with reference to the performance of the contract are sufficient. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff “ entered upon the performance of the contract and went out on the road and took and sent in orders to the defendant.” This allegation is sufficient and renders it unnecessary to allege generally due performance required by section 533 above referred to. The complaint states a good cause of action (Weed v. Burt, 78 N. Y. 191; Howard v. Daly, 61 id. 362; Crotty v. Erie R. R. Co., 149 App. Div. 262), and the demurrer should be overruled with costs.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Rodenbeck, J.

The question involved on the motion is the sufficiency of the allegation relating to the performance of the contract as a condition precedent. The action is for damages for the breach of a contract of employment. The defendant claims that the plaintiff has not alleged performance of conditions necessary to enable him to recover. The action is brought for a recovery in part of wages earned but chiefly for damages for a breach of the contract by reason of its termination by the defendants. An allegation of due performance under section 533 of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary where the action is brought to recover wages but is unnecessary in an action to recover for the breach of a contract. Murray v. [565]*565O’Donohue, 109 App. Div. 696. So far as the action seeks to recover wages which have been earned the allegations in the complaint with reference to the performance of the contract are sufficient. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff “ entered upon the performance of the contract and went out on the road and took and sent in orders to the defendant.” This allegation is sufficient and renders it unnecessary to allege generally due performance required by section 533 above referred to. The complaint states a good cause of action (Weed v. Burt, 78 N. Y. 191; Howard v. Daly, 61 id. 362; Crotty v. Erie R. R. Co., 149 App. Div. 262), and the demurrer should be overruled with costs.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 Misc. 564, 160 N.Y.S. 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-sherman-nysupct-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack