Case ID: nys_72/html/1102-07.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FISCHER, Respondent, v. CONHAIM et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by Max Fischer against .Joseph Conhaim and others.
    H. V. Rutherford, for appellants. J. Wilkenfeld, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The nonpayment of the bonus was by the contract of employment made dependent upon an exercise by the defendants of their reserved right to discharge the plaintiff within the year. He was not discharged, but served the full term, without any expression of dissatisfaction. He was, therefore, entitled to the extra compensation. Judgment <(71 N. Y. Supp. 315) affirmed, with costs.