Wheaton v. Higgins

90 N.Y.S. 1041, 1904 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 617
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 7, 1904·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The testimony of the witness Wilmoth affords direct proof of the plaintiff’s employment by the defendants, but the recovery was excessive. Concededly, the plaintiff left the employment voluntarily about the middle of the second month of the [1042] period for which he sues, and, the employment being by the month, as he testifies, he was entitled to wages only for services for the full period. The nonpayment of wages for the prior month was not tantamount to a discharge, and the recovery should have been limited to the actual wages earned.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event, unless respondent stipulates to reduce recovery to $40, in which event the judgment, so reduced, will be affirmed, without costs.

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

Wheaton v. Higgins, 90 N.Y.S. 1041, 1904 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

90 N.Y.S. 1041 (Wheaton v. Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rosenthal v. Becher
159 Misc. 856 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1936)
Cochran v. Hamblen
215 S.W. 374 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Barnett v. Cohen
110 N.Y.S. 835 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)