Cooper v. Singer
| Decision Date | 30 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 43.,43. |
| Citation | 191 A. 849 |
| Parties | COOPER v. SINGER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Joseph Cooper against Hyman Singer, trading as the Grand Slipper Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment reversed and venire de novo awarded.
Minturn & Weinberger, of Newark (Harry H. Weinberger, of Newark, of counsel; Hyman Halpern, of Newark, on the brief), for appellant. Greenburg, Wilensky & Feinberg, of Passaic (Bernard Feinberg, of Passaic, of counsel), for respondent.
The trial judge ordered a nonsuit at the end of the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment thereupon entered. The plaintiff had a written contract of employment with the defendant in which he engaged to work for the defendant at a stipulated wage for a period of six months, beginning October 30, 1933, as a designer, pattern-maker, and factory foreman. The contract provided that he would give his best efforts to the work of his employer and perform his work "to the satisfaction of the employer." The defendant-employer was a manufacturer of slippers.
The plaintiff worked until February 2, 1934, when he was served with a written notice of dismissal. The written notice contained ten particularized reasons for dissatisfaction such as tardiness, disobedience, poor work, inefficiency, and the like.
The plaintiff, by his testimony in the case, proved the contract of employment, his service thereunder, and the dismissal before the end of its term and his damages. He also claimed that his services were completely satisfactory to his employer and in support of this he testified that the employer had indicated such satisfaction by saying, "* * * Some day I (plaintiff) will become a partner"; that his employer, on being asked by plaintiff whether he was satisfied with the plaintiff's work, would reply, "A hundred per-cent." and this continued approval was given by the employer even on the day the written notice of dismissal was served.
Under these circumstances, it was reversible error for the court to have granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit. On motion for nonsuit, plaintiff's testimony must be taken as literally true, together with all the legitimate inferences such testimony will support. It is true that whenever an employee contracts to perform work to the satisfaction of the employer, it is the employer whose judgment shall control as to whether or not the work is satisfactory. See Gwynne v. Hitchner & Yerkes, 66 N.J.Law, 97, 48 A. 571.
In the case before us, the plaintiff offered evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Krug v. Wanner
-
Witkowski v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.
...of "[s]tealing or unauthorized possession of Company property" by having the can of oil in his locker. See Cooper v. Singer, 118 N.J.L. 200, 202, 191 A. 849 (E. & A.1937) (holding that whether foreman was fired because of employer's dissatisfaction or some other reason was jury issue); Jorg......
-
Fitzmaurice v. Van Vlaanderen Mach. Co.
...test of good faith and reasonableness. Urban Farms, Inc. v. Seel, 90 N.J.Super. 401, 217 A.2d 888 (App.Div.1966); Cooper v. Singer, 118 N.J.L. 200, 191 A. 849 (E. & A. 1937). Such a construction gives due weight to the language employed by the parties, considered in the context of their dea......
-
Thompson v. Hise.
...to the opening and the complaint the defendant admits everything well pleaded and every reasonable inference therefrom. Cooper v. Singer, 118 N.J.L. 200, 191 A. 849. The case of Carey v. Gray, 98 N.J.L. 217, 119 A. 176 relied upon by the defendant is not pertinent. There the court made a re......