Opinion
January, 1907.
Julius G. Kremer, for appellants.
Henry Kuntz, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff for alleged wrongful discharge from the defendants' employment. The contract of employment provided that the defendants agree to pay to the plaintiff "at the rate of seven hundred and eighty ($780) dollars for the first six months, commencing January 22d 1906, being thirty ($30) dollars per week, payable weekly, and at the rate of nine hundred and ten ($910) dollars for the second six months being thirty five ($35) dollars per week, as and for his salary, payable weekly." The court directed judgment for the plaintiff, who was discharged March 5, 1906, for $960, on the theory that the contract stated a yearly hiring. According to the rule stated in Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 117, "hiring at so much a day, week, month or year, no time being specified, is an indefinite hiring, and no presumption attaches that it was for a day even, but only at the rate fixed for whatever time the party may serve * * * A contract to pay one $2500 a year for services is not a contract for a year, but a contract to pay at the rate of $2500 a year for services actually rendered, and is determinable at will by either party." The contract in the present case clearly falls within the rule thus stated; moreover, the contract was made in January, 1906, the discharge occurred in March, the action was brought in April and tried in October. If the contract of employment had been for a year, as the plaintiff contends, he would be entitled to recover only for the damages he had sustained up to the time of this trial of the action; and it was error not to submit the question of damages to the jury. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
GILDERSLEEVE and DAYTON, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.