Case ID: ny-st-rep_27/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Freeland, Resp't, v. Richard S. Bacon et al., App’lts.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 2, 1889.)
    
    Master and servant—Extra compensation—Consideration.
    Plaintiff was employed to teach a class of boys. The class was increased in number, and on plaintiff objecting to the extra labor defendant agreed to pay him an additional sum therefor. Held, that the agreement , was founded on a good consideration and was binding.
    Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff.
    
      William H. Gibson and J. O. Clark, for app’lts; T. D. Kenneson, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

It is no doubt the rule that all services rendered under a contract are deemed to have been included in it. The ■question is how far the rule can be' applied to this case. The plaintiff claims that he was employed to teach a class of thirty boys at $1,200 per year; that the defendant, against the plaintiff’s ■objection, added twelve boys to the class, thereby increasing his labor. This circumstance, standing alone, would not raise an implication that the defendant was to pay the plaintiff anything above the contract price for his services, but the plaintiff went further, and testified that after he objected to the extra labor the defendant agreed to add $200 to his year’s salary for the additional services required, the additional compensation to commence with the first month of that year’s term of service. This contract for ■extra pay was founded on a sufficient consideration, and is binding on the defendant True, the defendant denied that he made any such contract, but the jury found that he did, and their finding on this subject is sufficiently sustained by the evidence. The parties agreed that if the plaintiff was entitled to recover anything the amount found by the verdict was not excessive, so that the question of excessive damages need not be considered.

We find no error, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam, Ch. J., Nehrbas and Holme, JJ., concur.