Case ID: ny-super-ct_48/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "“ Arnoux, J. Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE R. WILLIAMSON, Respondent, v. THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., Appellant.
    
      Pleading—motion to malee definite and certain—action by officer against company for salary, necessary allegations—allegation “that salary was duly and regularly fixed,” sufficient.—Indebitatus count in debt.
    
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.
    Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to make the complaint more definite and certain.
    The complaint alleged that defendant was a domestic corporation, duly organized, etc., having a place of business in New York City, and proceeded : “3. That from April 1, 1880, to September 20, 1881, plaintiff held the office of secretary of said company, and discharged all the duties and services appertaining thereto.”
    “4. That the salary of the said office, during all said times, was duly and regularly fixed by said company at $1,800 per year.”
    “5. That the defendant is justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,650, for salary and services rendered by him as such secretary of said company, from the said 1st day of April, 1880, to the 20th day of September, 1881 (both inclusive), which sum has been duly demanded, but the same has not been paid or any part thereof.”
    “Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment, etc.”
    The following opinion was delivered at special term:
   “ Arnoux, J.

The fifth paragraph of the amended complaint states a good and sufficient cause of action (Allen v. Patterson, 7 N. Y. 476).”

“ In view of that fact the other allegations of the complaint might be disregarded; but the allegations complained of are sufficient. The manner in which the salary claimed by plaintiff “was duly and regularly fixed by said company ” is matter of proof. The cases of Beach v. King, 17 Wend. 197 ; Grillett v. Fairchild, 4 Den. 80 ; White v. Joy, 13 N. Y. 83; Currie v. Henry, 2 Johns. 433, have no application. They relate to acts of parties other than the defendant, and of which defendant could not be presumed to have knowledge.”

Butler, Stillman & Hubbard, for appellant.

Stanley, Clarke & Smith, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.