238 A.D. 468 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1933
Lead Opinion
Defendant employed plaintiff as manager of a part of its business. The employment was under a written contract dated September 27,. 1929, at a minimum annual salary of $12,000. The defendant by motion in New York county challenged the sufficiency of the complaint claiming that no fixed term of employment was provided by the contract. The Special Term denied the defendant’s motion and on appeal the Appellate Division in the First Department affirmed the order granted by the Special Term sustaining the complaint, writing in a memorandum: “ Whether the plaintiff Hollwedel had a contract of employment for a definite period of ten years, or employment only so long as the defendant Duffy-Mott Company, Inc., desired protection of the restrictive covenant, presents a question the ultimate determination of which must await a full adducement of all the facts and surrounding circumstances.” (236 App. Div. 785.) This decision constrains us to hold that the written contract which is the basis of the plaintiff’s right to a salary, although ambiguous, may in the light of surrounding circumstances be construed as a contract of employment for ten years from its date. A voluminous record embodies “ a full adducement of all the facts and surrounding circumstances ” and (in accordance with the principle stated in the quoted memorandum) sustains the finding that the contract was for a ten-year employment beginning at its date.
The defendant discharged the plaintiff on October 21, 1930. There is no error of fact or law in the finding that the discharge was wrongful.
The verdict of the jury entered November 19, 1932, was for $118,762.53. Pursuant to an order of the trial judge, the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict to $113,484.75.
The recovery is larger than the proof warranted. It is computed on the total amount of unpaid salary from November 1, 1930, to September 27, 1939, approximately $106,900, less $5,800 conceded by plaintiff to have been earned by him after his discharge and before the time of the trial, with interest on the difference from the date of breach, October 21, 1930, to the date of the beginning of the trial, November 15, 1932, such interest amounting to $12,384.75. No allowance has been made for the element of futurity in the installments of salary which by the contract fell due after the date of the breach.
In cases of this kind when the trial occurs after the time for performance has expired it is not difficult to calculate with accuracy the damages for loss of payments due before the date of trial. Events occurring after the breach and before the trial are in such cases taken into consideration. (McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, supra.) (See Sider v. General Electric Co., 238 N. Y. 64.) When the trial occurs before the time for performance under the contract has expired greater uncertainty as to damages is necessarily present. In either event, however, installments payable under a contract at fixed dates after the breach cannot at the date of the breach have a value in excess of the amount of the future installments properly discounted. A refusal to make allowance for such discount results in remaking the contract and accelerating the due date of future installments. (Nichols v. Scranton Steel Co., 137 N. Y. 471; Baer v. Durham Duplex Razor Co., 228 App. Div. 350; affd., 254 N. Y. 570, on appeal by defendant only; Matter of English Joint Stock Bank [Yelland’s Case], L. R. 4 Eq. 350; Bondy v. Harvey, 218 App. Div. 128.) The injustice of allowing such an acceleration of future payments is emphasized when section 480 of the
Interest on the damages from the date of the breach must be allowed. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 480.)
The judgment and order should be reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict as of the date of its rendition to the sum of $88,752.78, which is the maximum amount of damages recoverable under the evidence computed in accordance with the principles above stated, and, in case such stipulation is given, the judgment should be modified accordingly and as modified affirmed, without costs.
All concur, except Taylor and Thompson, JJ., who dissent and vote for affirmance in a memorandum by Taylor, J.
Dissenting Opinion
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs, for the following reasons:
(1) The written document annexed to the complaint as “ Schedule A ” (Exhibit 1), executed September 27, 1929, taken in connection with the conversations and transactions had between plaintiff and the officers and representatives of defendant and the conduct of the parties as indicated by the testimony in the record, constitute a contract for ten years’ service by plaintiff as employee to defendant as employer. (See, also, First Department memorandum in this same case, 236 App. Div. 785.) In addition the jury found the existence of such a contract as a fact under a charge to which no exception was taken.
(2) Defendant has not proved that it had a valid reason for discharging plaintiff from its employ.
(3) This being an action for damages for breach of contract the correct measure of damages was applied, viz., the full amount d salary unpaid, due and to become due, subject to reasonable deduo
In reliance upon the conclusions reached in Nichols v. Scranton Steel Co. (137 N. Y. 471) and Baer v. Durham Duplex Razor Co. (228 App. Div. 350; affd. on appeal by defendant only, 254 N. Y. 570), it is urged that after allowing plaintiff prima facie the full amount of his salary earned and to be earned to the end of his term, the “ present worth ” of that amount should have been ascertained before deductions were made for other moneys earned or that should reasonably be earned. The invalidity of that claim lies in this: The cases last cited were cases involving — the one a sale of iron, the other the marketing of razors — and in such cases, in the absence of proof that the vendor in the one case and the owner and patentee of the razor in the other lessened, or should have lessened his damages by making similar substituted arrangements with some third person, a jury can make no such deductions or offsets as are indicated hereinbefore in the instant case dealing with a personal service contract. It is clear to us that when deductions or adjustments cannot be made under the proof in these breach of contract cases, ascertainment of “ present worth ” brings about an equitable result as to amount of damages. In the instant case, following the rule as well stated in Davis v. Dodge (supra, at p. 475), the jury found that a deduction of $5,800 should be made from the total amount of salary due and to become due. In so doing the jury must be held to have taken into consideration all the proper elements of offset — and having done so the real “ present worth ” of the salary due and to become due has been arrived at and there is no conflict between the two lines of cases cited.
“ It is not the law that damages which may be larger or smaller because of such uncertainties are not recoverable.” (Davis v. Dodge, supra, p. 475, quoting from Cutter v. Gillette, supra.) “ Although he [plaintiff] may receive his money earlier in this way and may gain or lose by the estimation of his damage in advance of the time for performance, still, as we have seen, he has the right
(4) Interest from date of breach of contract to time of trial was properly allowed.. The damages were unliquidated since the amount, if any, to be deducted from the unpaid balance of plaintiff’s salary for the full term of employment was left to the sound discretion of the jury in a correct charge (McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, supra), and the jury found that $5,800 should be deducted from salary due. Thus, under the cases hereinbefore cited, the total amount of unliquidated damages due to plaintiff on date of breach, November 1, 1930, was ascertained and under section 480 of the Civil Practice Act the allowance of interest from that date to date of trial was correct. The old New York rule respecting allowance of interest on unliquidated damages as illustrated, e. g., in Vandyke v. Webb (167 App. Div. 445, 457), has been superseded by section 480 of the Civil Practice Act in effect April 4, 1927. (McLaughlin v. Brinckerhoff, 222 App. Div. 458; Hackenheimer v. Kurtzmann, 235 N. Y. 57, 67.) The incorrect charge of the learned trial court relative to interest allowable was cured by the reduction of the amount of the judgment on motion for new trial from $118,762.53 to $113,484.75.
(5) Any informality in the proceedings of the jury while deliberating or in their manner of arriving at a verdict is inconsequential in view of the result finally reached by the learned trial court.
Thompson, J., concurs.
Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $88,752.78 as of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly and as so modified is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
