New York Insulated Wire Co. v. Broadnax
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The defendant in error (hereinafter called the “plaintiff”), as assignee of the claim of Francis Broadnax against the plaintiff in error, the New York Insulated Wire Company (hereinafter called the “defendant”), for damages for the breach of a contract of employment, brought an action at law against it in the circuit court for the Southern district o# New York, and recovered a verdict…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The defendant in error (hereinafter called the “plaintiff”), as assignee of the claim of Francis Broadnax against the plaintiff in error, the New York Insulated Wire Company (hereinafter called the “defendant”), for damages for the breach of a contract of employment, brought an action at law against it in the circuit court for the Southern district o# New York, and recovered a verdict for $2,818.99, upon which verdict judgment was entered. This writ of error was brought to review that judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge.
On July 5, 1892, the defendant employed Francis Broadnax as electrical engineer for two years from August 20, 1892, at the salary of §4,000 per annum. The immediate engineering work which lie was to enter upon was to make plans for, have ihe charge of, and inspect the work incident to the defendant’s subcontract with the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company for wiring at the World’s Fail*. The last-named company had the contract for the entire electrical work. This subcontract was one of importance, for it required the use of nearly 2,000,000 feet of wire, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Nagel v. KrausCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Schaffer v. Park Bowl, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1952