Levin v. Standard Fashion Co. — 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 191

Majority

p. 191

Elizabeth M. Levin, Resp’t, v. The Standard Fashion Co., App’lt.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

Filed April 24, 1891.)

Headnote

Master and servant—Wrongful dismissal—Damages.

In an action to recover damages for plaintiff’s dismissal from defendant’s employ, it appeared that plaintiff was employed by defendant as an editorial writer, under a written agreement that “she was to render services to the satisfaction of the company ” for one year. There was no evidence of dissatisfaction on the part of defendant. Plaintiff testified that the president of the defendant dismissed her after treating her in a brutal manner. This he denied; and testified that he did not dismiss her, and that he subsequently offered to re-employ her for similar service. Held, that a judgment for plaintiff would not be reversed on the ground that defendant was the sole judge as to whether her services were satisfactory or not, and thus had a right to dismiss her.

Appeal from judgment for plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.

Wm. B. Ellison, for app’lt; Theo. N. Melvin, for resp’t

—Miss Levin, the plaintiff, entered the employment of the defendant company under a written agreement by which “ she was to render services to the satisfaction ” of the company, as an editorial writer on its journal of fashion, for one

p. 192

year, at twenty-five dollars per week for the first six months, and thirty dollars per week for the remainder of the term.

The plaintiff brings this action, claiming that on March'9,1887, i Mr. Koewing, the president of the company, dismissed her after treating her in the most brutal manner, by shaking his fist in her face and calling her a liar and a thief in the presence of the other. employes of the company. However, Mr. Koewing denied all of' this, and testified that he did not dismiss her, and that he said to her, “ I want you,” btit that she insisted upon resigning, and did so; and he further testified that he had subsequently written her 1 a note offering to re-employ her, but she refused such re-employment j

All of these- disputed questions were properly submitted to the 1 jury, who returned a verdict of $515.16 in plaintiff’s favor. There had been a previous trial of this case some time before, at which , this plaintiff recovered $150.43, and from which both she and the defendant appealed to the general term, by which the judgment was affirmed, and again both continued their appeals to the court of common pleas, where a new trial was granted, and Judge 1 Pryor, in a carefully considered opinion, effectually disposes of every objection which is now made by the defendant, except, per- . haps, the one considered in the first point of the brief of appellant’s attorney, which is, that by the contract Miss Levin “ was to render services to the satisfaction ” of the company; that the jury having given her a verdict has found that she was dismissed, and hence that the company had done what it had a right to do, as it was the sole judge as to whether her services bad been rendered . to its satisfaction. There seems to be little or no force in this ! theory, for there does not appear anywhere in the case the slightest evidence, or even intimation, that either the company or Mr. : Koewing was in the least degree dissatisfied with her services ; 1 but, on the contrary, Mr. Koewing swears that he did not dismiss her, but that he said to her, “ I want you,” and that he did actually write her afterwards, offering to re-employ her to render sim- ‘ ilar services. All the other points made by appellant have been passed upon at general term of court of common pleas in this , very case, which is fully reported in 11 N. Y. Supp., 706 ; 34 N. Y. State Rep., 299.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Newburger, J., concurs.