Schwartz v. J. L. Taylor & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. J. L. Taylor & Co.

225 A.D. 684

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D. 684 (Schwartz v. J. L. Taylor & Co.) 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

Schwartz v. J. L. Taylor & Co., 225 A.D. 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that there was a question of fact for the jury as to the authority of Reiss, the treasurer and general manager of defendant International Tailoring Company, to employ plaintiff for the term claimed by plaintiff. The testimony of the witness Reiss that it was the policy of the company to employ nobody under a contract for a term was contradicted by his other testimony, to which no objection was raised, that he had the right to enter into agreements employing men, whether for the week, month, or for any other time. Under these circumstances, it was for the jury to determine what his authority was. (Becker v. Koch, 104 N. Y. 394.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Seeger and Scudder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event, upon the ground that there was a question of fact for the jury as to the authority of Reiss, the treasurer and general manager of defendant International Tailoring Company, to employ plaintiff for the term claimed by plaintiff. The testimony of the witness Reiss that it was the policy of the company to employ nobody under a contract for a term was contradicted by his other testimony, to which no objection was raised, that he had the right to enter into agreements employing men, whether for the week, month, or for any other time. Under these circumstances, it was for the jury to determine what his authority was. (Becker v. Koch, 104 N. Y. 394.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Seeger and Scudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D. 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-j-l-taylor-co-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack