Southwick v. Bernhard

Superior Court of New York

Southwick v. Bernhard

17 N.Y.S. 478, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 358

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJanuary 11, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 478 (Southwick v. Bernhard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southwick v. Bernhard, 17 N.Y.S. 478, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 358 (superctny 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, J.

The action was by the plaintiff, as traveling salesman, to recover damages for wrongful discharge. The question litigated was whether the hiring, was by the year, or for no fixed duration, and terminable at the pleasure of either party. The jury found that the agreement was to continue for one year, and the plaintiff, having been discharged nine months before the term of service expired, was awarded by the jury the actual loss suffered,— no more. The plaintiff endeavored but was unable to obtain other employment: hence his loss aggregated the sum which the defendant by his contract was to pay. There is no merit in the exceptions taken, and there is nothing in the ease which requires a new trial. The case was fairly submitted to the jury, and the judgment entered on their verdict and the order denying the motion for a new trial must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

McAdam, J.

The action was by the plaintiff, as traveling salesman, to recover damages for wrongful discharge. The question litigated was whether the hiring, was by the year, or for no fixed duration, and terminable at the pleasure of either party. The jury found that the agreement was to continue for one year, and the plaintiff, having been discharged nine months before the term of service expired, was awarded by the jury the actual loss suffered,— no more. The plaintiff endeavored but was unable to obtain other employment: hence his loss aggregated the sum which the defendant by his contract was to pay. There is no merit in the exceptions taken, and there is nothing in the ease which requires a new trial. The case was fairly submitted to the jury, and the judgment entered on their verdict and the order denying the motion for a new trial must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 478, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwick-v-bernhard-superctny-1892.