Case ID: njl_94/html/0565-01.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

LEROY I. PETTIT, RESPONDENT, v. C. W. PRITCHARD COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT.
    Submitted March 22, 1920
    Decided June 14, 1920.
    On appeal from Hid Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed :
    “Tiie question is purely one of fact, and we cannot disturb the finding, of the trial court.
    “The consideration for the contract was the agreement of the plaintiff to continue in the defendant’s employ when he was tinder no obligation to do so. Mr. Pritchard told him to go when lie first suggested leaving, and there seems to hare been no contract to keep him, except the new one then made on which plaintiff now relies.
    “Let judgment bo entered for the plaintiff.”
    For the appellant. Charles E. S. Simpson.
    
    For the respondent, John A. Jlaripence.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court. •

For affw’mance—Tjnz Chief Justice, Trbnchard, .Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.