Case Name: ANDERSON, Respondent, v. LANE et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-05
Citations: 78 N.Y.S. 1107
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDERSON, Respondent, v. LANE et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 78
Pages: 1107–1107

Head Matter:
ANDERSON, Respondent, v. LANE et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
May, 1902.)
Action by Herbert A. Anderson against Jonas H. Lane and others. From an affirmance by the general term of the city court of the city of New York of a judgment rendered at the trial term thereof in favor of the plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Bard & Calkins, for appellants. Morris Cukor, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the general term of the city court, affirming a judgment of the trial term entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff. The action is brought to recover damages for breach of contract of employment. The evidence produced by plaintiff, which we must accept as true, shows that on or about the 7th of February, 1899, one. of the defendants entered into an agreement with plaintiff, whereby he employed plaintiff for the balance of that year as cashier, at the rate of $1,100 per year. The defendants are copartners, and this agreement was for employment by the copartnership. Plaintiff entered upon the discharge of his duties under this agreement, and continued in such employment until June 1st, when he was discharged without sufficient cause. His salary was paid up to June 15th. After his discharge, he tried to secure other employment, and he succeeded in doing so, and the difference between what he would have earned, had he continued with defendants, and what he was able to earn during the balance of that period, was $367.99, which is the sum in which be has been damaged by reason of his wrongful discharge. .The jury gave him a verdict for that sum, with interest. No exception was taken to any portion of the charge, and the only questions of law presented are those raised by exceptions to the admission or exclusion of testimony. None of these is of sufficient weight to call for a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs.