Walsh v. City of New York
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.
PER CURIAM.
We think that the case of Ryan v. City of New York, 177 N. Y. 271 , 69 N. E. 599 , which is binding upon us, precludes the possibility of a recovery in this case. Under the rule laid down in that case, it is clear that the court below was correct in deciding that the acceptance by the plaintiff of his wages for a period of three years was a waiver of any claim he may have had under the statute to recover the per diem increase for that period.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.