London v. Doktor

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

London v. Doktor

117 N.Y.S. 115

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 117 N.Y.S. 115 (London v. Doktor) 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

London v. Doktor, 117 N.Y.S. 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinions

DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff sued for breach of contract of hiring until March 1, 1909, having been discharged January 19, 1909. Hers was the only testimony offered in her behalf. The defendant, his wife,, and superintendent all testified that her employment was by the week,, and conditioned upon her services proving satisfactory, and that her discharge was caused by her failure to meet the requirements of her duties. There were no circumstances tending to corroborate plaintiff’s inherently improbable testimony, but she had judgment for the full amount claimed. As there was a failure to establish her cause o£ action by a preponderance of evidence, there must be a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

LEHMAN, J., concurs.

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

DAYTON, J.

Plaintiff sued for breach of contract of hiring until March 1, 1909, having been discharged January 19, 1909. Hers was the only testimony offered in her behalf. The defendant, his wife,, and superintendent all testified that her employment was by the week,, and conditioned upon her services proving satisfactory, and that her discharge was caused by her failure to meet the requirements of her duties. There were no circumstances tending to corroborate plaintiff’s inherently improbable testimony, but she had judgment for the full amount claimed. As there was a failure to establish her cause o£ action by a preponderance of evidence, there must be a new trial.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

LEHMAN, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 N.Y.S. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-v-doktor-nyappterm-1909.