Leacock v. Striker

New York Court of Common Pleas

Leacock v. Striker

10 N.Y.S. 540, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 690, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 844

DecidedJuly 18, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 540 (Leacock v. Striker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leacock v. Striker, 10 N.Y.S. 540, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 690, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 844 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, who was employed as an engineer, having been discharged, brought this action to recover, as damages, his wages for a month. The defense was a justification of the discharge, on the ground of plaintiff’s negligence and carelessness as engineer, and a counter-claim for damages arising from such negligence and carelessness. After hearing the testimony offered, the justice dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, and did not allow any part of defendant’s counter-claim. Hence plaintiff’s appeal. We have carefully examined the return, and the only question raised by it seems to be one of fact, and we think the evidence of negligence, although conflicting, quite sufficient to sustain the justice’s finding in that respect. But appellant contends that, even if this were so, inasmuch as he had worked for nine days during the month in which he was discharged he should have had a judgment for such services on a quantum meruit. But the return shows that, when discharged, he was tendered a half month’s wages for those days, which he refused. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, who was employed as an engineer, having been discharged, brought this action to recover, as damages, his wages for a month. The defense was a justification of the discharge, on the ground of plaintiff’s negligence and carelessness as engineer, and a counter-claim for damages arising from such negligence and carelessness. After hearing the testimony offered, the justice dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, and did not allow any part of defendant’s counter-claim. Hence plaintiff’s appeal. We have carefully examined the return, and the only question raised by it seems to be one of fact, and we think the evidence of negligence, although conflicting, quite sufficient to sustain the justice’s finding in that respect. But appellant contends that, even if this were so, inasmuch as he had worked for nine days during the month in which he was discharged he should have had a judgment for such services on a quantum meruit. But the return shows that, when discharged, he was tendered a half month’s wages for those days, which he refused. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 540, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 690, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leacock-v-striker-nyctcompl-1890.