Legal Opinion

Cleveland v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 8, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Cochrane, P. J.:

The contract of employment contemplated that claimant should return to Cuba with the horse and cutter. This was for the benefit of both parties. It was the duty of claimant to his employer to return the horse and cutter and it was likewise his right to return with them. An exigency arose which had not been considered by either party. The circumstances of that exigency were such that claimant could not thereafter render any service to his employer. It would have been idle for him to attempt to overtake the horse which was trotting away from him and as it turned out the horse…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matter of Di Salvio v. . Menihan Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. Matter of Moore v. . Lehigh Valley Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1916

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Culberson v. Daniel Hamm Drayage CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  2. Claim of Corrina v. DeBarbieriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
  3. Claim of Groszek v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API