McGrath v. Bell
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal Irom judgment. ' The plaintiff, in his complaint, claimed to recover for salary due him upon a written contract,- whereby defendant had employed him as cutter in defendant’s tailoring establishment, for the period of two years, at the rate of $35 per week, and alleging, among other things, that plaintiff had been discharged without cause, although he was ready and willing to perform his duty under the contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal Irom judgment. ' The plaintiff, in his complaint, claimed to recover for salary due him upon a written contract,- whereby defendant had employed him as cutter in defendant’s tailoring establishment, for the period of two years, at the rate of $35 per week, and alleging, among other things, that plaintiff had been discharged without cause, although he was ready and willing to perform his duty under the contract. The defendant, by answer, admitted the contract, and an indebtedness of about $35 ; but denied the discharge without cause, and set up several causes for the discharge.
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Freedman, J.
Upon the trial, defendant attempted to justify plaintiff’s discharge upon two grounds, namely, first, that plaintiff had been guilty of violations of orders; and .secondly, that plaintiff had acted in a manner derogatory to the interests of his employer.
*183The disobedience of orders consisted in taking down on paper a list of the names of the patterns, which plaintiff said he kept as a memorandum, so that, it any of defendant’s customers gave a second order, he, plaintiff, as cutter, could know he had the patterns. No order to refrain from doing so had ever been communicated to plaintiff by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Middleton v. GriffithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
- Toscani v. Quackenbush Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1934