Case Name: Joseph J. Doyle, Resp't, v. The Unexcelled Fire Works Co., App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-05-12
Citations: 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 360
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph J. Doyle, Resp’t, v. The Unexcelled Fire Works Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 32
Pages: 360–361

Head Matter:
Joseph J. Doyle, Resp’t, v. The Unexcelled Fire Works Co., App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
Filed May 12, 1890.)
Appeal — Verdict.
Where til re was no error committed in the charge, and there was evidence sufficient to support the plaintiff's claim, a verdict rendered upon conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.
Appeal from, judgment in favor of plaintiff for $319.85, entered upon verdict and from order denying motion for a new trial.
Action for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff claimed to have been employed for one year by one Linton, the superintendent of defendant’s factory. Defendant denied that Linton had authority to make such a contract,and alleged that the only person havingsuch authority was Johnson, its general manager. The evidence ”as conflicting.
Hatch & "Warren, for app’lt; W. J. Gay nor, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant- and discharged and this action is for the recovery of the damages resulting to him from such discharge.
It is the position of the plaintiff that he was employed for the period of one year, and that he was discharged without sufficient cause before the expiration of his term.
The cause was tried at the circuit and the plaintiff introduced evidence sufficient to support his claim, and then testimony was introduced on the part of the defendant upon the questions of fact involved and the case was given to the jury by an unobjectionable charge, and the'verdict-was rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
We have examined the testimony and And the verdict fully justified thereby, and we find no error committed upon the trial.
The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.