Case Name: Ware Brothers Company, Respondent, v. Cortland Cart and Carriage Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-28
Citations: 148 A.D. 546
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ware Brothers Company, Respondent, v. Cortland Cart and Carriage Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 546–549

Head Matter:
Ware Brothers Company, Respondent, v. Cortland Cart and Carriage Company, Appellant.
Third Department,
December 28, 1911.
Master and- servant — advertising contract—breach of contract of. employment — damages — obligation of employee to seek other employment.
Where an employer breaks a contract of employment, the employee in order to recover full wages must use reasonable diligence to procure other employment of the same kind in order to reduce the damages. But he is not bound to look for or accept employment Of another kind.
Where a defendant having contracted for the publication of an advertisement in a particular place in the plaintiff’s magazine repudiated the contract, the plaintiff in order to recover the full contract price must show that it made reasonable effort to fill the space with other advertisement.
Houghton and Sewell, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, the Cortland Cart and Carriage Company, from" a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff,, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Broome on the 1st day of March, 1911, upon the verdict of a. jury rendered by direction of the court, and also from an order-entered in said clerk’s office on the: 18th day of March, 1911,. denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the-minutes, with notice of an intention to bring up for review an order entered on the same day denying the defendant’s-motion to strike the action from .the calendar.
The recovery was for the contract price, $350, and interest,, for publishing in the plaintiff’s monthly magazine, “ The-Vehicle Dealer,” - the defendant’s advertisement for twelve-issues. The advertisement was to Occupy the last half page on. ’ the inside back cover, a preferred location. After the contract,, but before the publication began, the defendant directed the-plaintiff not to publish the advertisement, and repudiated the-contract upon its. part. This contract was before the Court of Appeals in 192 New York, 439.
Hinman, Howard & Kattell [Archibald Howard of counsel], for the appellant.
T. B. Merchant and L. M. Merchant, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kellogg, J.:
In order to recover full wages where the employer has breached his contract, the employee is bound to use reasonable diligence to procure other employment of the same kind, in order to relieve the employer as much as possible from loss consequent upon the breach, but he is not bound to look for or accept occupation of another kind. (Fuchs v. Koerner, 107 N. Y. 529; Milage v. Woodward, 186 id. 252.) In the Milage case the court said: "The fact that the boat was moored at a public place in the city of Rochester, where it would be natural for any one to go who desired to secure transportation of goods on the canal, is sufficient. It certainly cannot be successfully asserted that the plaintiff, in view of these facts, admitted that he made no effort to secure employment." There the plaintiff and the boat were apparently in the market for employment. An examination of the cases will show, I think, that a plaintiff must either show an effort to obtain work or must show facts and circumstances which indicate that he put himself in such a position with reference to the market for labor that those desiring services of the kind he had to sell would naturally seek him.
The Court of Appeals treats this contract as one of employment. ' It is conceded that the advertisement was to be published in a particular place in the plaintiff's magazine, probably the most desirable place. After the defendant had repudiated the contract, the plaintiff continued the publication and the space was fully occupied. It was thereby apparently withdrawn from the market, and it was unreasonable to expect that others would apply for it. The plaintiff was, therefore, called upon to show that it had made some reasonable effort to fill that space, or in some way had indicated to the trade that a customer was desired for it. I, therefore, favor a reversal of the judgment.
All concurred, except Houghton, J., dissenting in opinion, in which Sewell, J., concurred.