Reynolds v. Roosevelt

New York Supreme Court

Reynolds v. Roosevelt

8 N.Y.S. 749, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 369, 55 Hun 610, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1756

DecidedFebruary 12, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.Y.S. 749 (Reynolds v. Roosevelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reynolds v. Roosevelt, 8 N.Y.S. 749, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 369, 55 Hun 610, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1756 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

On the plaintiff’s examination in his own behalf, he was allowed to testify to a conversation between himself and B. B. Roosevelt, Jr., in the absence of defendant. The conversation was important, if credited by the jury, and was properly objected and excepted to. Its reception was ail error which requires a reversal of the judgment.

Irrespective of that error, the judgment should not be allowed to stand. An examination of the plaintiff’s testimony shows his claim to be without merit. It abundantly appeared from his own testimony that his employment was general, and that he was to give his whole time and services to his employer, Mr. Roosevelt, Sr., and his family. It is entirely clear that his duties were rendered to all the members of the family, indiscriminately. When closely pressed on cross-examination, the triviality of the services for which he now seeks compensation was apparent. There is no evidence that the original employer consented that his servant should enter the service of another. For any service to an outside party which plaintiff rendered for a consideration, the master, and not the servant, would be entitled to recover. The evidence of a promise to pay for the work specially by defendant was too vagué to sustain a recovery, while an agreement to pay for services ordinarily gratuitous should be clear and unmistakable. Upon the whole case, it is plain that the plaintiff did not establish a cause of action, and a verdict for defendant should have been directed. Judgment reversed.

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

Pratt, J.

On the plaintiff’s examination in his own behalf, he was allowed to testify to a conversation between himself and B. B. Roosevelt, Jr., in the absence of defendant. The conversation was important, if credited by the jury, and was properly objected and excepted to. Its reception was ail error which requires a reversal of the judgment.

Irrespective of that error, the judgment should not be allowed to stand. An examination of the plaintiff’s testimony shows his claim to be without merit. It abundantly appeared from his own testimony that his employment was general, and that he was to give his whole time and services to his employer, Mr. Roosevelt, Sr., and his family. It is entirely clear that his duties were rendered to all the members of the family, indiscriminately. When closely pressed on cross-examination, the triviality of the services for which he now seeks compensation was apparent. There is no evidence that the original employer consented that his servant should enter the service of another. For any service to an outside party which plaintiff rendered for a consideration, the master, and not the servant, would be entitled to recover. The evidence of a promise to pay for the work specially by defendant was too vagué to sustain a recovery, while an agreement to pay for services ordinarily gratuitous should be clear and unmistakable. Upon the whole case, it is plain that the plaintiff did not establish a cause of action, and a verdict for defendant should have been directed. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y.S. 749, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 369, 55 Hun 610, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-roosevelt-nysupct-1890.