McCrystal v. O'Neill

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McCrystal v. O'Neill

86 N.Y.S. 84

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 84 (McCrystal v. O'Neill) 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

McCrystal v. O'Neill, 86 N.Y.S. 84 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinions

MacFFAN, J.

Bringing this action for wages, the plaintiff testified he had been for 19 years in the employment of the defendant, until lately a livery stable keeper; that he received $12 a week; that, on an occasion, John O’Neill had promised him $13, the $1 raise to be paid on the 1st of every month, but had asked him to wait for the extra weekly $1 for a while, as he (O’Neill) was a little short; that Wm. O’Neill had been present once when John spoke of the dollar, and had promised it would be paid. It was not so clear, upon the plaintiff’s testimony, that the defendant, if any one, was the promisor, particularly as he said he was engaged by James O’Neill; but there was enough to submit to the jury, even if the learned justice were of opinion that any verdict for the plaintiff should be set aside (Pierce v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 21 App. Div. 427, 47 N. Y. Supp. 540), and the judgment of dismissal must be reversed.

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

DAVIS, J. concurs.

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

MacFFAN, J.

Bringing this action for wages, the plaintiff testified he had been for 19 years in the employment of the defendant, until lately a livery stable keeper; that he received $12 a week; that, on an occasion, John O’Neill had promised him $13, the $1 raise to be paid on the 1st of every month, but had asked him to wait for the extra weekly $1 for a while, as he (O’Neill) was a little short; that Wm. O’Neill had been present once when John spoke of the dollar, and had promised it would be paid. It was not so clear, upon the plaintiff’s testimony, that the defendant, if any one, was the promisor, particularly as he said he was engaged by James O’Neill; but there was enough to submit to the jury, even if the learned justice were of opinion that any verdict for the plaintiff should be set aside (Pierce v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 21 App. Div. 427, 47 N. Y. Supp. 540), and the judgment of dismissal must be reversed.

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

DAVIS, J. concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccrystal-v-oneill-nyappterm-1904.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack