Case ID: ny-super-ct_54/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHANN KEIM, Appellant, v. PETER DOELGER, Respondent.
    
      Contract for employment for life in consideration of not prosecuting action for personal injuries—When void for uncertainty and lack of consideration and under statute of frauds.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ.
    
      Decided December 30, 1886.
    Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.
    This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the breach on the part of the defendant of an alleged agreement to employ the plaintiff for the remainder of plaintiff’s life at a salary of $55.00 per month. This agreement the defendant was charged with having made in consideration of plaintiff not prosecuting actions for the recovery of damages arising from personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on two different occasions while in the employ of the defendant. The answer put in issue all the material allegations of the complaint. At the trial the plaintiff failed to show that he had ever claimed that the defendant was liable, or that the defendant was liable in fact, for the personal injuries sustained, or either of them, and he failed to give any evidence thát he had ever, at any time, promised not to sue the defendant, or agreed to release him from any supposed liability. He also failed to show that any rate of compensation was mentioned. On the other hand, it appeared affirmatively that if the plaintiff had any claim against the defendant by reason of the personal injuries sustained, his right of action was not barred when he was discharged in October, 1882, for the alleged reason that he had fallen asleep in the discharge of his duty as a watchman.
    
      The Court at General Term (after stating the facts as above), said:—“ Aside, therefore, from the questions arising under the statute of frauds as to the agreement claimed, the declarations of the defendant as to his intention to keep the plaintiff employed, so far as any were shown, were so indefinite and uncertain, and so entirely without consideration, that they did not constitute a valid agreement. The plaintiff having wholly failed to establish the cause of action set forth in the complaint, his complaint was properly dismissed.”
    
      George W. Stephens, for appellant.
    
      Samuel Untermeyer, for respondent.
   Opinion by Freedman, J.; Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.