Case Name: Cyrus S. Merrill, Respondent, v. United Box Board and Paper Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-03-23
Citations: 143 A.D. 833
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cyrus S. Merrill, Respondent, v. United Box Board and Paper Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 833–839

Head Matter:
Cyrus S. Merrill, Respondent, v. United Box Board and Paper Company, Appellant.
Third Department,
March 23, 1911.
Contract by corporation employing director to render services — repudiation of contract — proof necessary to recovery for time not served.
A director of a corporation seeking to recover on a contract of employment for five years made for the corporation by his codirectors, which contract has been repudiated by the corporation after part performance by him, cannot recover for time not served without showing the fairness and propriety of the contract.
Houghton, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, the United Box Board and Paper Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 22d day of August, 1910, upon the report of a referee.
Frederick F. Wadhams [James Todd of counsel], for the appellant.
William S. Ostrander, for the respondent.

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 concurred, Betts, J., in result in opinion, except Houghton, J., dissenting and voting for an affirmance of the judgment, with a deduction, however, of the $5,000 counterclaim from the plaintiff's recovery.