McKeogh v. Browning, King & Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McKeogh v. Browning, King & Co.

125 N.Y.S. 368

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 11, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 125 N.Y.S. 368 (McKeogh v. Browning, King & Co.) 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

McKeogh v. Browning, King & Co., 125 N.Y.S. 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

The plaintiff alleges that he was employed by the defendant for a year, and that the defendant wrongfully discharged him before the termination of that period. The entire case turns upon a letter of the plaintiff’s former attorney to the defendant, in which it is stated that the employment was for sik months only. This letter was offered in evidence, and, though not marked in evidence, was subsequently referred to and used by both sides at the trial. On the settlement of the case, the court below refused to mark the letter in evidence, and granted a motion of the defendant to remove it from the record. It is properly before us, however, and should have been admitted, as it is sufficiently identified. Satkofsky v. Jarmulowsky (Sup.) 95 N. Y. Supp. 555.

As the record stands, there was a substantial dispute whether the term of employment was six months or a year. On the basis of this letter, the defendant agreed to and did take back the plaintiff for the remainder of the six months; and the question at issue between the parties was thus adjusted. The contract for one year, if then existing, was thereby merged in this accord and satisfaction, and the judgment below is unwarranted.

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

SEABURY, J., concurs. PAGE, J., concurs in result.

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

BIJUR, J.

The plaintiff alleges that he was employed by the defendant for a year, and that the defendant wrongfully discharged him before the termination of that period. The entire case turns upon a letter of the plaintiff’s former attorney to the defendant, in which it is stated that the employment was for sik months only. This letter was offered in evidence, and, though not marked in evidence, was subsequently referred to and used by both sides at the trial. On the settlement of the case, the court below refused to mark the letter in evidence, and granted a motion of the defendant to remove it from the record. It is properly before us, however, and should have been admitted, as it is sufficiently identified. Satkofsky v. Jarmulowsky (Sup.) 95 N. Y. Supp. 555.

As the record stands, there was a substantial dispute whether the term of employment was six months or a year. On the basis of this letter, the defendant agreed to and did take back the plaintiff for the remainder of the six months; and the question at issue between the parties was thus adjusted. The contract for one year, if then existing, was thereby merged in this accord and satisfaction, and the judgment below is unwarranted.

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

SEABURY, J., concurs. PAGE, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 N.Y.S. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckeogh-v-browning-king-co-nyappterm-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack