Case Name: MERRILL v. UNITED BOX BOARD & PAPER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-03-23
Citations: 128 N.Y.S. 959
Docket Number: 
Parties: MERRILL v. UNITED BOX BOARD & PAPER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 128
Pages: 959–963

Head Matter:
MERRILL v. UNITED BOX BOARD & PAPER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
March 23, 1911.)
Master and Servant (§ 40 )—Actions for Breach—Burden of Proof.
Where plaintiff sought to recover damages for the breach of a contract of personal service, which he maintained was to continue to a certain time, the burden of proving that the contract was to continue for that time was upon him.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant) Cent. Dig. §§ 47-49; Dec. Dig. § 40.*]
Houghton, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Judgment on Report of Referee.
Action by Cyrus S. Merrill against the United Box Board & Paper Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, based on the report of the referee, defendant appeals.
Reversed, referee discharged, and a new trial granted.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON, SEWELL, and BETTS, JJ.
Frederick E. Wadhams (James Todd, of counsel), for appellant.
William S. Ostrander, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
So far as the payments already made to the plaintiff are concerned, the court finds no reason for requiring him to refund them. The propriety of a contract for five years, under all the circumstances of the case, is not apparent. The burden of proof rested with the plaintiff to show its fairness and propriety, when he seeks to recover for time not served. He has not met that burden,., and, under all the circumstances, the court is satisfied he should receive no further compensation after the notice was given terminating his services. The counterclaim for $5,000, the balance due upon the bond account, was sustained by a fair preponderance of evidence.
The judgment should- therefore be reversed upon the law and facts, the referee discharged, and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur (BETTS, J., in result in opinion), except HOUGHTON, J., who dissents, and votes for an affirmance of the judgment, with a deduction, however, of the $5,000 counterclaim from the plaintiff's recovery.