From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carlson v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1907
117 App. Div. 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)

Opinion

March 1, 1907.

J. Charles Weschler [ Sol Rothschild with him on the brief], for the appellant.

Robert P. Beyer, for the respondent.


The complaint contains two causes of action, viz., one for the amount due to the plaintiff on his contract of service for a year at the time of its breach by his discharge by the defendant, and the other for the damages caused by the breach. They are not one cause of action; the test is that a recovery on one of them would not bar an action on the other ( Perry v. Dickerson, 85 N.Y. 345).

The order should be reversed and the motion granted.

WOODWARD, JENKS and RICH, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Kings county reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with costs.


Summaries of

Carlson v. Albert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1907
117 App. Div. 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)
Case details for

Carlson v. Albert

Case Details

Full title:CARL J. CARLSON, Respondent, v . JACOB ALBERT, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1907

Citations

117 App. Div. 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)
102 N.Y.S. 944

Citing Cases

Raftery v. Carter

First. I think the amended complaint states three alleged causes of action: (1) For an accounting of the…

Lyon v. Israel

A recovery or a failure to recover with respect to one would not bar recourse to the other, and vice versa. (…