23 N.Y.S. 333 | New York Court of Common Pleas | 1893
The judgment recovered by the plaintiff represents damages from the breach of a contract for a six-months employment. If in fact he was hired for a shorter term, the judgment is necessarily erroneous; or, were the contract for no definite duration of service, either party might terminate it, certainly at the end of any month, (De Briar v. Minturn, 1 Cal. 450; Howard v. Railway Co., [Ala.] 8 South. Rep. 868; Clark v. Ryan, [Ala.] 11 South. Rep. 22; Ward v. Ruckman, 34 Barb. 419;) and, when the hiring is for a period “not exceeding” a named term, its duration is indefinite, (Harper v. Hassard, 113 Mass. 187; Peacock v. Cummings, 46 Pa. St. 434; Coffin v. Landis, Id. 426.) “Either party may put an end to the contract at any time, if the term is indefinite; as,’ if A. employs B. to serve him at a certain sum a month, for a period not exceeding three years.” Wood, Mast. & Serv. (2d Ed.) § 133. If such was the agreement in question, it is clearly incapable of sustaining the action. To the support of the judgment, therefore, it is indispensable that the contract on which it rests should stipu