Greer v. People's Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Headnote

Master and servant—presumption as to continuance of employment heyond term,. —Duty of servants of corporation as to orders of different officers.

Appeal by defendants from judgment for plaintiff entered on verdict of jury, and from order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the judge’s minutes.

The action was upon an alleged breach of contract of hiring of plaintiff by defendants to perform certain services.

The court at general term said:—“Two questions are involved in this appeal. The first refers to the assumption by the court, below that on the pleading and proof it appeared that the defendants had hired the jdaintiff for one year. The testimony shows that the plaintiff had been hired originally before September 1, 1881, for one year, and

has continued in the employment frQnvthat day to September 1, 1882. He remained in the service after that day, until October 31,1882, when he was discharged without his consent. On these facts the law is, that the remaining in the service for any time by the consent of the employer, renews the first contract for one year. Or, if there had been no hiring in the first place expressly for one year, the law implies a contract for services for that time, and also if there be a continuance of services after that time, a renewal for one year.

“ The second question refers to a claim by defendants, that the evidence incontrovertibly shows that the plaintiff was validly dismissed October 31, 1882, because of disobedience of orders given to him by the secretary, who was also treasurer of the company. The orders which he disobeyed were at variance with orders that he had received from,—as the jury were at liberty to find,—two members of the executive committee. It did not appear that it was the duty of the plaintiff to look solely for orders to the secretary, so clearly -that there was no question for the jury on this point. And the court left it to the jury to find whether the orders he received from the secretary were such as he should have obeyed, saying that if they were, the plaintiff could not recover for services after October 31.”