Howe v. T. M. U. J. M. Fox, Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
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
- McNeil v. CobbAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Haehnel v. TrostlerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1907
- Elliott v. MillerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Spain v. Manhattan Shirt Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Reed v. NewmanAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1900