Case ID: ny_225/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfred Sohland, Appellant, v. Pennsylvania Silk Company, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Sohland v. Pennsylvania Silk Co., 184 App. Div. 889, affirmed.
    (Argued January 7, 1919;
    decided January 21, 1919.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 17, 1918, unanimously 
      affirming- a judgment in favor of defendant, respondent, entered upon an order of Special Term granting its motion for judgment on the pleadings and directing as to it a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for an alleged breach of a contract of employment. The complaint alleged a wrongful discharge. The defendant Pennsylvania Silk Company answered, and moved for judgment upon the pleadings, because of insufficiency of the complaint, claiming that the contract was so indefinite, contradictory, unintelligible and lacking in mutuality as to be void and unenforcible, and that in any event the contract was terminable at will, so that there could be no breach of contract in discharging plaintiff.'
    
      Irving L. Ernst and Walter E. Ernst for appellant.
    
      Herbert R. Limburg and Morris J. Hirsch for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.