Wallace v. Kranz
This text of 226 A.D. 125 (Wallace v. Kranz) 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.
Opinion
So long as plaintiffs paid defendant his-stipulated salary, the character of defendant’s employment was not such that plaintiffs breached or terminated their contract with defendant by not allowing him to continue performing the services for them which he had been accustomed to perform under the terms of the contract. (Turner v. Sawdon & Co., L. R. [1901] 2 K. B. 653.) Defendant stated to plaintiffs, on December 3, 1928, that inas[126]*126much as they had refused to let him work in his old capacity in their Buffalo office, he considered the contract breached and would hot be under any obligation to them at all. On December 8, 1928, defendant, through his attorneys, wrote plaintiffs to the effect that since they had terminated the contract he would seek other employment and enter the trading business within the county of Erie. Under this state of facts the judgment appealed from is fairly sustained by the evidence.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
226 A.D. 125, 234 N.Y.S. 439, 1929 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-kranz-nyappdiv-1929.