Dineen v. May
Richard B. Dineen v. "George" May and "Albert" Jekyll, Doing Business under the Firm Name of May & Jekyll (Names "George" and "Albert" Being Fictitious, Defendants' Christian Names Being Unknown to Plaintiff), Arthur B. Jekyll
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Miller, J.:
This is an action for wrongful discharge from employment. The complaint alleged that the contract of employment was in writing. A copy of said contract was annexed to the answer.. The plaintiff served a bill of particulars in which he stated that the contract for breach of which the suit was brought was the contract, a copy of which was annexed to the answer. Motion was made for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereupon the court gave judgment for the defendants on the ground that the contract gave the defendants the absolute right to discharge with or without reason. The provision in question is as follows: “You [meaning the plaintiff] are to be in all respects subject to such orders as from time to time you may receive from your superiors and to dismissal at any time for incompetence or whenever your dismissal shall in the opinion of the Contractors be for the best interests of the Contractors or the Railway Company. The decision of the said Contractors as to the occasion for any such dismissal shall be final. ”
We think the learned justice at Special Term correctly construed the contract. Cases of agreements to perform work to the satisfaction of an employer are not in point. Here the *471 parties have provided by language too plain to require construction that the decision of the employer shall he final.
A point, which apparently was not suggested at the Special Term, is now made by the plaintiff, namely, that the bill of particulars cannot he considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. We have already said that one of the purposes of section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure was to obviate the necessity of waiting until the trial to make the motion. (Clark v. Levy, 130 App. Div. 389 .) The purpose of the statute was to save expense and delay. It would he absurd to hold that on a motion for judgment on the pleadings before trial the plaintiff^ bill of particulars could not he considered, although, if the parties are required to prepare for trial, the case will he dismissed at the opening. We think that on such a motion as this the court may consider whatever might properly be considered on a motion for judgment at the opening of the trial.
The judgment and order should he affirmed, with costs.
Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, LAUGHLiNand Clarke, JJ., concurred.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.