Case Name: PINDER v. JENKINS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-11-11
Citations: 113 N.Y.S. 588
Docket Number: 
Parties: PINDER v. JENKINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 113
Pages: 588–592

Head Matter:
(128 App. Div. 711.)
PINDER v. JENKINS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 11, 1908.)
1. Master and Servant , (§ 40 )—Wrongful Discharge—Damages—Other Employment—Burden of Proof.
In an action by a servant for wrongful discharge, while the burden of proving that plaintiff might have obtained other employment after his discharge is on defendant, the burden is satisfied, and shifts to plaintiff, Where-plaintiff admits on cross-examination that he had not sought other employment since his discharge.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 47; Dec. Dig. § 40. ]
2. Evidence (§ 592*)—Weight—Evidence Adduced on Cross-Examination.
A defendant satisfies the burden of proof resting on him by drawing out the requisite proof on the cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Dec. Dig. § 592.*]
Smith, P. J., and Kellogg, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Saratoga County.
Action by William D. Finder against Ormond Eugene Jenkins. From a judgment for defendant and an order overruling a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and CHESTER, KELLOGG, COCHRANE, and SEWELL, JJ.
L. B. McICelvey, for appellant.
W. P. Butler, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, S Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
CHESTER, J.
The action is for damages for an alleged wrongful discharge of the plaintiff from the service of the defendant. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to establish a contract of employment by the defendant to work his farm for the period of one year at an agreed compensation. After working a few weeks, the plaintiff was discharged, as he claims, by the defendant without cause. He was paid for the time he worked, and he seeks in this action to recover the balance of the contract price.
On cross-examination the plaintiff admitted that he had sought no other position after his discharge. In his charge to the jury the court instructed them that, if they found that the defendant had broken his contract with the plaintiff, they could find a verdict in his favor for only six cents. The jury found for the plaintiff, and rendered a verdict for that amount. The appellant insists that the burden rested upon the defendant to show that employment might have been found, or that it had been offered and declined. That undoubtedly is the rule under the authorities. Allen v. Glen Creamery Company, 101 App. Div. 306, 91 N. Y. Supp. 935; Howard v. Daily, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285. But here the defendant satisfied the burden resting upon him when he drew out the fact upon cross-examination of the plaintiff that he had not since his discharge sought to obtain another, position. As it was said in Fuchs v. Koerner, 107 N. Y. 529, 530, 14 N. E. 445, it was "the plaintiff's duty to use reasonable diligence in procuring another place of the same kind, in order to relieve the defendant as much as possible from the loss consequent upon his breach of contract." The fact that the defendant satisfied the burden resting upon him by drawing the proof out upon cross-examination, rather than by evidence produced at some other stage of the trial or in some other way, is of no consequence. Ruland v. Waukesha Water Company, 52 App. Div. 280, 65 N. Y. Supp. 87; Milage v. Woodward, 186 N. Y. 252, 78 N. E. 873. So long as the proof stands in the case uncontradicted, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of it.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.-
SEWEEE, J., concurs.