Wills v. Union Bottling Co.

Superior Court of New York

Wills v. Union Bottling Co.

10 N.Y.S. 959, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1176

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 27, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.Y.S. 959 (Wills v. Union Bottling Co.) 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

Wills v. Union Bottling Co., 10 N.Y.S. 959, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1176 (superctny 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Truax, J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain sum of money for a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant for unpaid salary as treasurer of the defendant. It was alleged in the answer, among other things, that the plaintiff had resigned his position as treasurer and abandoned the defendant’s business, and had not offered or tendered his services as treasurer to the defendant since the day of his resignation. The trial judge correctly stated the only question in the case when he left it to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff, in June, 1883, resigned his office of treasurer. That question the jury determined against plaintiff, and, as there was evidence to warrant such determination, the judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Truax, J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain sum of money for a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant for unpaid salary as treasurer of the defendant. It was alleged in the answer, among other things, that the plaintiff had resigned his position as treasurer and abandoned the defendant’s business, and had not offered or tendered his services as treasurer to the defendant since the day of his resignation. The trial judge correctly stated the only question in the case when he left it to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff, in June, 1883, resigned his office of treasurer. That question the jury determined against plaintiff, and, as there was evidence to warrant such determination, the judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.Y.S. 959, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wills-v-union-bottling-co-superctny-1890.