Walls v. Coleman

New York Supreme Court

Walls v. Coleman

11 N.Y.S. 907, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 283, 58 Hun 605, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2423

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 907 (Walls v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walls v. Coleman, 11 N.Y.S. 907, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 283, 58 Hun 605, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2423 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Learned, P. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court, affirming that of the city court of Albany. The case was tried before one of the justices of that court, without a jury, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. As there was no jury, of course the nonsuit is, in effect, the same as a decision for the defendants, on the plaintiff’s evidence, unless, indeed, it is not a bar to another action; that is, the justice who tried the case could pass on the weight of evidence, if necessary so to do. We see no error in this ease. The plaintiff tries to recover a part of bis wages, which was withheld until the end of the season, under the contract between plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff left before the end of the season, and he was not discharged. This is evident from the testimony in the case. There is nothing unreasonable in such a contract. It is quite just that the workman shall agree to stay through the season, and that if he does not he shall lose a part of the wages he would otherwise have received. Judgment of county court affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

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

Learned, P. J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court, affirming that of the city court of Albany. The case was tried before one of the justices of that court, without a jury, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. As there was no jury, of course the nonsuit is, in effect, the same as a decision for the defendants, on the plaintiff’s evidence, unless, indeed, it is not a bar to another action; that is, the justice who tried the case could pass on the weight of evidence, if necessary so to do. We see no error in this ease. The plaintiff tries to recover a part of bis wages, which was withheld until the end of the season, under the contract between plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff left before the end of the season, and he was not discharged. This is evident from the testimony in the case. There is nothing unreasonable in such a contract. It is quite just that the workman shall agree to stay through the season, and that if he does not he shall lose a part of the wages he would otherwise have received. Judgment of county court affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 907, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 283, 58 Hun 605, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walls-v-coleman-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack