Case Name: John Scanlon, Resp't, v. The H. B. Claflin Co., App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12-04
Citations: 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 344
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Scanlon, Resp’t, v. The H. B. Claflin Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 56
Pages: 344–345

Head Matter:
John Scanlon, Resp’t, v. The H. B. Claflin Co., App’lt.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed December 4, 1893.)
Contract—Renewal.
No renewal of the previous year’s agreement for extra compensation will be presumed, where, upon a suggestion from plaintiff’s manager that such extra compensation would be discontinued, only a disagreement, appears.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district, court in the city of New York, for the first judicial district, rendered upon a trial before the justice thereof without a jury.
Action to recover balance of wages alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant.
The opinion states the facts.
Kneeland & Stewart, for app’lts; Wm. J. A. Oaffrey, for resp’t..

Opinion:
Giegerich, J.
The plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to support his cause o£ action. It is conceded that the agreement as to extra compensation for the year 1889 was executed, but the testimony of the plaintiff, with reference to the arrangement for the year 1890, fails, in our opinion, to establish a like contract for that year or for the years following.
This testimony is to the effect that defendant's manager suggested that the extra compensation would be discontinued and that there were " angry words," but no renewal of the previous year's agreement appears. Were it not for this, admitted discord a contract for similar compensation might be implied, but in the face of such disagreement it certainly would seem that the plaintiff did not justly rely upon any further compensation for his weekly work than his weekly wages. The case was insufficient at the time when plaintiff rested, and the error presented by the refusal to dismiss was not cured by evidence subsequently ad- . duced.
For these reasons, the judgment should be reversed and a new-trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.