April Term, 1900.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. All concurred, except Bartlett, J., who dissented on the ground that the plaintiff's own testimony indicates that he did not regard the defendant's treatment as a discharge.
Full title:William H. Bundick, Respondent, v. Julius H. Strauss, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Apr 1, 1900
We cannot assume that it is a formal discharge, still less that it is framed to take effect prior to April…