Walls v. Coleman — 11 N.Y.S. 907

Majority

p. 907

Walls v. Coleman et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

November 26, 1890.)

Headnote

Master and Servant—Contract op Service.

A provision in a contract of services that a certain sum per week be held back from the wages of the employe, to be forfeited if he leaves before the close of the season for which he was employed without being discharged, is not unreasonable, and an employe, leaving voluntarily, cannot recover such sum.

Appeal from Albany county court.

Action by Walter Walls against Thomas D. Coleman & Co., originally commenced in the Albany city court to recover $10, balance of wages for services rendered to defendants. Defendants claimed that plaintiff forfeited this sum under his agreement that $1 per week be retained from his wages, the same to be forfeited if he left before the close of the malting season, a period of 40

p. 908

weeks, and that plaintiff voluntarily left them before the expiration of the season. A judgment in favor of defendants was affirmed in the county court, and plaintiff again appeals.

Argued before Learned, P. J., and Landon and Mayham, JJ.

N. B. Spalding, for appellant. Thomas A. Meegan and Lucien Tuffs, for respondents.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the county court, affirming that of the city court of Albany. The case was tried before one of the justices of that court, without a jury, and the plaintiff was nonsuited. As there was no jury, of course the nonsuit is, in effect, the same as a decision for the defendants, on the plaintiff’s evidence, unless, indeed, it is not a bar to another action; that is, the justice who tried the case could pass on the weight of evidence, if necessary so to do. We see no error in this ease. The plaintiff tries to recover a part of bis wages, which was withheld until the end of the season, under the contract between plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff left before the end of the season, and he was not discharged. This is evident from the testimony in the case. There is nothing unreasonable in such a contract. It is quite just that the workman shall agree to stay through the season, and that if he does not he shall lose a part of the wages he would otherwise have received. Judgment of county court affirmed, with costs.

All concur.