Ross v. Wacke

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. Wacke

147 N.Y.S. 1138

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 14, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 147 N.Y.S. 1138 (Ross v. Wacke) 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

Ross v. Wacke, 147 N.Y.S. 1138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

GUY, J.

Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered by the court after a trial without a jury, in an action to recover damages for breach of contract of employment. Plaintiffs were engaged by defendants at a salary of $40 for a four-day theatrical performance of a play produced by plaintiffs. The contract provided that “either party may cancel this agreement after the first performance, without any liability whatsoever, if unsatisfactory for incompetency, vulgarity, inebriety,” etc. After the first performance defendants notified plaintiffs that they elected to cancel the agreement because of the vulgarity and incompetency of the performance. The sole question at issue is whether defendants acted in good faith in canceling the contract, and whether such cancellation was made on any of the grounds provided for in the contract. The evidence clearly establishes that the production was inherently vulgar and that defendants acted in good faith in canceling the contract. The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

BIJUR and PENDLETON, JJ„ concur in result.

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

GUY, J.

Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered by the court after a trial without a jury, in an action to recover damages for breach of contract of employment. Plaintiffs were engaged by defendants at a salary of $40 for a four-day theatrical performance of a play produced by plaintiffs. The contract provided that “either party may cancel this agreement after the first performance, without any liability whatsoever, if unsatisfactory for incompetency, vulgarity, inebriety,” etc. After the first performance defendants notified plaintiffs that they elected to cancel the agreement because of the vulgarity and incompetency of the performance. The sole question at issue is whether defendants acted in good faith in canceling the contract, and whether such cancellation was made on any of the grounds provided for in the contract. The evidence clearly establishes that the production was inherently vulgar and that defendants acted in good faith in canceling the contract. The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

BIJUR and PENDLETON, JJ„ concur in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 N.Y.S. 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-wacke-nyappterm-1914.