Streep v. McLoughlin

36 Misc. 769
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Streep v. McLoughlin. Read the opinion of the Court — 36 Misc. 165
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided October 15, 1901·Published

Opinion

McAdam, J.

The action was for wrongful discharge and the main issue, whether the hiring was by the year as claimed by the plaintiff, or by the week as urged by the defendants.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and as no motion for a dismissal of the complaint or direction of a verdict was made at the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendants conceded the plaintiff’s right to have the issues submitted to the jury. Pollock v. Tenn. Iron Works, 157 N. Y. 699, 700.

Under the circumstances we must regard the finding of the jury as conclusively settling the facts (Rowe v. Comley, 11 Daly, 317; Briscoe v. Litt, 19 Misc. Rep. 5, 8; Bogan v. Wright, 22 id. 96; Mahoney v. O’Neill, 29 id. 619, 620), and as there is no-merit in the exceptions, the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, P. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Streep v. McLoughlin, 36 Misc. 769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

36 Misc. 769 (Streep v. McLoughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pollock v. . Pennsylvania Iron Works Company
51 N.E. 979 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Briscoe v. Litt
19 Misc. 5 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Rowe v. Comley
11 Daly 317 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1882)