Nowlis v. Hurwitz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 248, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., May T., 1907, No. 401, on verdict for defendant in case of Wm. Nowlis v. Joseph Hurwitz.. Assumpsit for salary. Before Garman, J. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was the instruction referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This was an action to recover salary for forty-nine weeks under an express contract of employment at $50.00 per week for an indeterminate period. The defendant denied the employment and alleged that the plaintiff was *155his partner in the business in which the services were rendered. There was no dispute in relation to the time of service.
The main ground of complaint is that the charge contained the instruction that unless the evidence showed that the plaintiff had worked forty-nine weeks he was not entitled to recover anything. This instruction was clearly erroneous since no period…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McMillen v. StrathmannSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Reed v. Horn's Motor Express, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Gandy v. KlawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- McGinley v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917