Morgan v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan v. City of New York

105 A.D. 425, 94 N.Y.S. 175

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 A.D. 425 (Morgan v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. City of New York, 105 A.D. 425, 94 N.Y.S. 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Hatch, J.:

The facts in this case cannot distinguish it from the case as made in McCabe v. City of New York (77 App. Div. 637; affd. by the Court of Appeals, 176 N. Y. 587). The fact that the affidavits were taken in the morning before business hours does not change the result any more than the rendition of other services charged upon the plaintiff performed either before or after office hours would authorize extra compensation. What plaintiff did was done in the performance of his duties as chief messenger. They were charged upon him by specific direction, and he performed them as service required by the department and in the discharge of his duties.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. .

Patterson, O’Brien and Lauqhlin, JJ., concurred.

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

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

Hatch, J.:

The facts in this case cannot distinguish it from the case as made in McCabe v. City of New York (77 App. Div. 637; affd. by the Court of Appeals, 176 N. Y. 587). The fact that the affidavits were taken in the morning before business hours does not change the result any more than the rendition of other services charged upon the plaintiff performed either before or after office hours would authorize extra compensation. What plaintiff did was done in the performance of his duties as chief messenger. They were charged upon him by specific direction, and he performed them as service required by the department and in the discharge of his duties.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. .

Patterson, O’Brien and Lauqhlin, JJ., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D. 425, 94 N.Y.S. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack