Case Name: George Cox, respondent, vs. William A. Baeder et al. appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-14
Citations: 5 N.Y. St. Rep. 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Cox, respondent, vs. William A. Baeder et al. appellant.
Judges: Barnard, P. J., and Pratt J., concur.
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 5
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
George Cox, respondent, vs. William A. Baeder et al. appellant.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 14, 1886.)
Contract — Breach of — Evidence — Estoppel.
The plaintiff claimed that he was employed by the defendants for one year at salary agreed upon, and that he was wrongfully discharged, before the year had elapsed. The defendants denied the employment for the year, and claimed that it was from week to week. The testimony of the plaintiff suppported the contract as set up in the complaint, and it was strengthened by an entry made by him in the books of the defendants which came under the notice of one of them to the effect that he was hired at a stated salary for one ye'ar. The defendants and one other witness testified that the plaintiff was hired by the week. The case was submitted to the jury, and verdict rendered for the plaintiff. Held, that the verdict was supported by evidence sufficient if true to sustain it, and that there was no inherent improbability in it, also that when the defendant saw the entry in his book, his silence and failure to raise objection to its correctness was a tacit admission that it was right.
Appeal from judgment entered on a verdict rendered in fa-,. yor of plaintiff at tbe King’s County Circuit and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the judge’s minutes.
David Van, for appl’ts ; William L. Whiting, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an action for the recovery of damages for a breach of a contract. The plaintiff claims that he was employed by the defendants as a book-keeper for one year from the twenty-third day of March, 1885, at a salary of twelve hundred dollars a year, and that he was wrongfully discharged in November of the same year.
The defendants denied the employment for a year, and claimed that the plaintiff was employed by the week.
The plaintiff testified to the contract, as he set it up in his complaint, and his testimony was strengthened by an entry which he made in the books of the defendant, and which came under the notice of'one of them, to the effect that he was hired as a-book-keeper, at twelve hundred dollars a year, and commenced Monday, March 23d, 1885.
The defendants and one witness besides, testified that the contract was not for a year, but that the plaintiff was hired by the week.
So the case went to the jury without any exception to the charge, and the plaintiff received the verdict, which is supported by evidence sufficient to sustain it if it was true, and we cannot say it is not. There is no inherent improbability in the testimony of the plaintiff, and when the defendant saw the entry in the book, his silence and failure to raise objections to its correctness, was a tacit admission that it was right.
The result of the trial is not very satisfactory, but we do not find sufficient to justify the interference of an appellate court, and the judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Pratt J., concur.