Case Name: William Wills, App'lt, v. The Union Bottling Company, Resp't
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-06-27
Citations: 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 1100
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Wills, App’lt, v. The Union Bottling Company, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 32
Pages: 1100–1100

Head Matter:
William Wills, App’lt, v. The Union Bottling Company, Resp’t.
(New York Superior Court, General Term
Filed June 27, 1890.)
Corporations — Services.
In an action for unpaid salary as treasurer of a corporation, tlie answer, among other things, alleged that plaintiff resigned as treasurer, and abandoned the business. Held, that the court properly left the question of such resignation to the jury, as the only question in the case.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with costs, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on all the causes specified in § 999 of the Code.
Action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the sum of $1,483.33, with interest from the 8th of February,1884, for a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant for unpaid salary at the rate of $2,000 per annum, claimed to be due to plaintiff as salary while acting as treasurer of the defendant
Hatch & Warren, for app’lt; Morgan A Wallcer, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain sum of money for a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant for unpaid salary as treasurer of the defendant. \
It was alleged in the answer, among other things, that the plaintiff had resigned his position as treasurer, and abandoned the defendant's business, and had'not offered or tendered his services, as treasurer, to the defendant, since the day of his resignation.
The trial judge correctly stated the only question in the case when he left it to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff, in June, 1883, resigned his office of treasurer. That question the jury determined against plaintiff, and as there was evidence to warrant such determination, the judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
O'Gorman, J., concurs.