Case Name: TOOHILL v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-05
Citations: 159 N.Y.S. 187
Docket Number: 
Parties: TOOHILL v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 159
Pages: 187–191

Head Matter:
(95 Misc. Rep. 136)
TOOHILL v. NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department.
May Term, 1916.)
1. Gas <S=>11—Inspection—Compensation of Inspector—Completion of Work.
In an action by a municipal inspector to recover salary from a gas company under tin appointment limiting his compensation to the duration of the work, held, the burden was his to establish the duration of the work; the defendant owing no duty to terminate Ms employment by notice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Gas, Dec. Dig. <§=M1.'J
2. Accord and Satisfaction <§=11(1)—Written Receipt.
Plaintiff asked for Ms salary, and was told he would get nothing unless he signed a receipt in full to date, and after signing such receipt was paid the amount stated. Helé an accord and satisfaction.
[Ed, Note.—For other cases, see Accord and Satisfaction, Cent. Dig. §§ 75, 79-82; Dec. Dig. <S=>11(1).]
Kapper, J., dissenting.
other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Queens, Fourth District.
Action by John Toohill against the New York & Queens Gas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and dismissed.
Argued May term, 1916,
before CLARK, JAYCOX, and KAP-PER, JJ.
P. F. W. Ruther, of New York City, for appellant.
William A. McLaughlin, Jr., of Jamaica, for respondent.

Opinion:
JAYCOX, J.
T agree with my Brother KAPPER in every respect save two, and they are the termination of plaintiff's employment and the question of accord and satisfaction. The plaintiff is employed for no fixed period. The provision in his appointment for payment "at the rate of $100 per month" fixes no period of employment. His appointment was to act as corporation inspector in connection with the work being carried on in the borough of Queens by the New York & Queens Gas Company. It would therefore appear that the plaintiff's employment was limited to the time when that company was doing work in the streets.
The necessity of a permit from the department of water supply, gas, and electricity is conceded. The defendant, in this case, obtained such permit. The seventh condition in the permit provides for 48 hours' notice to the borough engineer before any work is done under it. This permit further expressly provides:
"No work shall be done except under the supervision, to the satisfaction of, and in the presence of inspectors appointed by the commissioner of water ' supply, gas, and electricity, and the said company shall pay for the services of said inspectors at the rate of one hundred ($100) dollars per month each, during the time the work under this permit shall be actually in progress."
Under this permit the defendant was only to pay the inspector "during the time the work under this permit shall be actually in prog ress." The plaintiff is entitled to recover his pay at the rate of $100 per month for such period only as the work under the permit issued to the defendant was actually in progress. The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish the continuance of the work. I am of the opinion that the defendant was not required to send any notice terminating plaintiff's employment.
I am further of the opinion that there was an accord and satisfaction. When the plaintiff asked for his pay, he was told that he must sign the receipts which were in evidence or he would get nothing, whereupon he signed the receipts in question, each of which recited that the payment then made was in full to date. After he had signed this receipt he was paid. This brings the case clearly within the doctrine stated in Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231, 238, 33 N. E. 1034, 1035 (20 L. R. A. 785), where it is said:
"When a tender or offer is thus made, the party to whom it is made has no alternative but to refuse it, or accept it upon such condition. If he takes it, his claim is canceled, and no protest, declaration, or denial of his, so long as the condition is insisted on, can vary the result." Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326, 42 N. E. 715, 51 Am. St. Rep. 695; Genung v. Village of Waverly, 75 App. Div. 610, 77 N. Y. Supp. 581; Komp v. Raymond, 42 App. Div. 32, 58 N. Y. Supp. 909.
The same doctrine applies whether the dispute arises over a question of fact or of law. Jackson v. Volkening, 81 App. Div. 36, 80 N. Y. Supp. 1102; affirmed 178 N. Y. 562, 70 N. E: 1101; Dunn v. Whalen, 120 App. Div. 729, 731, 105 N. Y. Supp. 588. I advise that the judgment and order be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, dismissing the complaint upon the merits, with appropriate costs below. "
CLARK, J., concurs.