Case Name: WARE BROS. CO. v. CORTLAND CART & CARRIAGE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-28
Citations: 133 N.Y.S. 60
Docket Number: 
Parties: WARE BROS. CO. v. CORTLAND CART & CARRIAGE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 133
Pages: 60–62

Head Matter:
WARE BROS. CO. v. CORTLAND CART & CARRIAGE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
December 28, 1911.)
1. Master and Servant (§ 42 )—Discharge—Damages.
In order to recover full wages where the employer has breached his contract, the employé is bound to use reasonable diligence to procure other employment of the same kind in order to relieve the employer as much as possible from loss consequent upon the breach, but he is not bound to look for or accept occupation of another kind.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 54-56 ; Dec. Dig. § 42.*]
2. Damages (§ 62*)—Burden op Proof.
Where a contract called for the publication of defendant’s advertisement in plaintiff’s magazine, and before publication defendant revoked the contract, but plaintiff continued publication, plaintiff was not entitled to recover the contract price, in the absence of a showing that it had made some reasonable effort to fill the space otherwise.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 119-131; Dec. Dig. g 62.*]
Houghton and Sewell, JJ., dissenting.
The recovery was for the contract price, $350, and interest, for publishing in the plaintiff’s monthly magazine, “The Vehicle Dealer,” the defendant’s advertisement for 12 issues. The advertisement was to occupy the last half page on the inside back cover, a preferred location. After the contract, but before the publication began, the defendant directed the plaintiff not to publish the advertisement, and repudiated the contract upon its part. This contract was before the Court of Appeals in 192 N. Y. 439, 85 N. E. 666, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 272, 127 Am. St. Rep. 914.
Appeal from Trial Term, Broome County.
Action by the Ware Brothers Company against the Cortland Cart? & Carriage Company. Appeal by defendant from a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial.
Reversed.
See, also, 119 App. Div. 929, 105 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
Argued before SMITH, P. J„ and KELLOGG, HOUGHTON, SEWELL, and BETTS, JJ.
Hinman, Howard & Kattell (Archibald Howard, of counsel), for appellant.
T. B. & L. M. Merchant, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
JOHN M. KELLOGG, J.
In order to recover full wages where the employer has breached his contract, the employé is bound to use reasonable diligence to procure other employment of the same kind in order to relieve the employer as much as possible from loss consequent upon the breach; but he is not bound to look for or accept occupation of another kind. Fuchs v. Koerner, 107 N. Y. 529, 14 N. E. 445; Milage v. Woodward, 186 N. Y. 252, 78 N. E. 873. In the Milage Case the court said:
"The fact that the boat was moored at a public place in the city of Rochester, where it would be natural for any one to go who desired to secure transportation of goods on the canal, is sufficient. It certainly cannot be successfully asserted that the plaintiff, in view of these facts, admitted that he made no effort to secure employment."
There the plaintiff and the boat were apparently in the market for employment. An examination of the cases will show, I think, that a plaintiff must either show an effort to obtain work, or must show facts and circumstances which indicate that he put himself in such a position with reference to the market for labor that those desiring services of the kind he had to sell would naturally seek him.
The Court of Appeals treats this contract as one of employment. It is conceded that the advertisement was to be published in a particular place in the plaintiff's magazine, probably the most desirable place. After the defendant had repudiated the contract, the plaintiff continued the publication, and the space was fully occupied. It was thereby apparently withdrawn from the market, and it was unreasonable to expect that others would apply for it. The plaintiff was therefore called upon to show that it had made some reasonable effort to fill that space, or in some way had indicated to the trade that a customer was desired for it. I therefore favor a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment and orders reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur, except HOUGHTON, J., dissenting in opinion in which SEWELL, J., concurs.