Case ID: ny_233/html/0678-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph De Marco, Respondent, v. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, Appellant.
    
      Contract — master and servant — alleged agreement to employ plaintiff . for life —• when question of justifiableness of discharge for jury.
    
    
      De Marco v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 199 App. Div. 945, affirmed.
    (Argued May 12, 1922;
    decided May 31, 1922.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 17, 1921, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial. The action was to recover for an alleged breach of contract. The complaint alleged that on or about February 4, 1909, plaintiff while in defendant’s employ was seriously injured by reason of defendant’s negligence; that thereafter the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement as follows: That plaintiff was to release to defendant his cause of action for personal injuries which he sustained while in defendant’s employ, and that defendant in turn agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $189.75 for lost time and $200 in addition as well as all hospital and medical costs during the time of plaintiff’s detention in the hospital and to furnish plaintiff with employment which he could safely perform, having regard to the condition of his eyesight, for the remainder of his natural life at the prevailing rate of wages for such employment; that the plaintiff performed all conditions on his part to be performed; that on August 16, 1916, said defendant removed said plaintiff from his position; that defendant wholly violated, repudiated and denied its contract with plaintiff and has withheld from him the benefits thereof. Defendant denied that it agreed to employ plaintiff for any given length of time. The Appellate Division held that the question of the justifiableness of the discharge should have been submitted to the jury.
    
      George E. Nelson for appellant.
    
      Walter A. Fullerton for respondent.
   Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.