Case Name: James R. Smith, Resp't, v. Stuart Robson, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-11-27
Citations: 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 606
Docket Number: 
Parties: James R. Smith, Resp’t, v. Stuart Robson, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 56
Pages: 606–606

Head Matter:
James R. Smith, Resp’t, v. Stuart Robson, App’lt.
(New York City Court, General Term,
Filed November 27, 1893.)
Contract—Services.
A clause in a contract which provides that the employer may discharge the employe if he is inattentive to business, careless in the performance of his duties, and guilty of a violation of the rules, does authorize an arbitrary discharge.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Howe & Hummel, for pl’ff and resp’t; W. W. Culver, for def’t and app’lt.

Opinion:
Mewburger, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for the wrongful discharge of plaintiff from the defendant's employment under a contract in writing entered into between the parties. The answer admitted the making of the contract, denied a wrongful discharge, and alleged that by reason of a clause in the contract the defendant was authorized to and did discharge, because the plaintiff was inattentive to business, careless in the performance of the duties by him undertaken, and guilty of a violation of the rules. The trial justice, at the close of the plaintiff's case, properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The only question in this case is whether the defendant had a right to discharge plaintiff. The contract between the parties did not give the defendant, at his mere pleasure, the right to discharge the plaintiff. It appears that plaintiff had been an experienced actor of years standing, and was engaged only after defendant's agent had witnessed his performance. The case was properly submitted to the jury, who found that the plaintiff had performed his duties fairly. It has.been repeatedly held by this and other courts in this state that contracts similar to the one at bar did not give a party the right to discharge an employe summarily. See Brandt v. Goodwin, 3 N. Y. Supp., 807; 24 St. Rep., 305; 15 Daly, 456; Grinnell v. Kiralfy, 55 Hun, 422 ; 29 St. Rep., 362.
The judgment appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed with costs.
Yah Wyck and McCarthy, JJ., concur.