Legal Opinion

Howe v. T. M. U. J. M. Fox, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided February 27, 1925Published

1Per curiam

This judgment must be reversed for the following reasons:

First. The action was for wages. The recovery was for damages for wrongful discharge. The statement of the court “ Breach of *506contract would be about the same thing ” was prejudicial before the jury. The subsequent amendment came too late and entirely changed the cause of action. (Reed v. Newman, 31 Misc. 792; Elliott v. Miller, 17 N. Y. Supp. 526; McNeil v. Cobb, 186 App. Div. 177; Ginsburg v. Von Seggern, 59 id. 595.)

Second. The contract was to perform services satisfactory to the defendant. The defendant’s business was the production…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McNeil v. CobbAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
  2. Haehnel v. TrostlerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1907
  3. Elliott v. MillerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
  4. Spain v. Manhattan Shirt Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  5. Reed v. NewmanAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API