Case Name: John Sullivan, v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-06-26
Citations: 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 518
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Sullivan, v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 39
Pages: 518–520

Head Matter:
John Sullivan, v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed June 26, 1891.
Veterans—Municipal corporation—New York Oitt—Laborer on public works.
"Where an honorably discharged Union veteran employed as a day laborer by the commissioner of public works, is discharged by him, and haying instituted proceedings by mandamus is reinstated, he is entitled to his wages for'tlie time during which the work was carried on between his discharge and reinstatment.
(Following Higgins v. Mayor, 38 N. Y. State Rep., 400.)
Motion for new trial upon exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term.
Sidney J. Cowen, for app’lt; Jerolomon & Arrowsmith, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P.. J.
—The following facts appeared upon the trial or were admitted by the pleadings.
The plaintiff, an honorably discharged Union veteran, was prior to May, 1889, duly employed by the commissioner of public works as a laborer at the rate of two dollars a day, repaving defective street pavements. While so employed on said day, he was discharged by the said commissioner. It further appeared that the plaintiff worked in a gang with seven or eight other men and that he was the only honorably discharged Union soldier in it, and that all the rest were retained to work in that gang throughout the year 1889. The plaintiff after his discharge instituted proceedings, and a writ of mandamus was issued out of this court requiring the' commissioner to reinstate him within two days. An appeal was taken and the judgment was affirmed in all things, with costs in January, 1890, and on the 10th of February he was reinstated.
But it is claimed that the plaintiff, being a day laborer, could not recover at all; and it was admitted that in case any recovery should be had, it should be for the sum of $311.
Upon this state of facts, the court directed a verdict for $311, to which exception was taken.
We are of opinion that the case of Higgins v. The Mayor, decided by this court in May, 1891, 38 N. Y. State Rep., 400, disposes of the question now before the court
It is urged upon the part of the defendant that it does not, because the plaintiff was a day laborer, whereas the plaintiff in the case cited was paid but once a month during the time of his employment, his hiring being two dollars a day, and not at the rate of two dollars a day.
It appeared from the evidence in this case that there was work to be done, and according to the decision of this court in the case of Higgins v. The Mayor, the plaintiff had a vested right to the continuation of the employment as long as the work was to be done; and that right having been illegally refused him, be was entitled to recover the wages which he would have received had the employment been given him to which he was entitled. It is not necessary, in view of the case cited, to discuss the question as to whether he was entitled to such priority or not, as that seems to be disposed of, and we can see no distinction in law between the case at bar and the case cited.
The exceptions should be overruled, and the plaintiff have judgment upon the verdict, with costs. If the defendant desires to carry the question to the court of appeals, a certificate will be granted.