Marino v. Wald.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 16.,16. |
| Citation | 135 N.J.L. 139,50 A.2d 662 |
| Parties | MARINO v. WALD. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Domenic Marino against Edward J. Wald, trading as Ye Olde Hackensack House, to recover overtime compensation. From a judgment entered upon defendant's motion to strike the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
A single or entire cause of action cannot be subdivided into several claims.
Nicholas Martini, of Passaic, and Isadore Rabinowitz, of Paterson, for appellant.
Ward & Levinthal and Maurice Levinthal, all of Paterson, for defendant.
The appeal in this case is from a judgment entered upon a motion to strike the complaint. The basis of the action taken was because the appellant has split his cause of action into two claims upon one of which he had already maintained an action to final judgment in the district court prior to the institution of the present suit.
The plaintiff started to work for the defendant at a weekly wage sometime in 1933. During the course of his employment his wages were increased. He alleges an agreement for payment in addition to his regular wages for overtime work and the present actions sought to recover for overtime work for the period beginning six years before the institution of the suit, or from June 25, 1939 to February 12, 1944, when the employment ended.
The complaint states a suit was brought for the recovery for overtime work from March 14, 1943 to September 14, 1943, and judgment was entered in that action. We think the court ruling was proper.
The contract of employment was entire and indivisible. Having elected to subdivide it into several claims, and having prosecuted one of those claims to judgment, plaintiff is not at liberty to bring this suit. See Silber v. James Drug Stores, Inc., 124 N.J.L. 401, 11 A.2d 756; F. W. Woolworth & Co. v. Zimmerman, 179 A. 474, 13 N.J.Misc. 505.
The appellant was in the same position as one who may have been entitled to overtime payments during the entire period, but having elected to bring his action for the installments due for the period from March 14, 1943 to September 14, 1943, he is precluded from bringing an action for other installments.
This is not an action for two distinct services as in Faherty v. Branegan, 112 N.J.L. 134 169 A. 654, nor do the facts fall within the rule laid down in Schwartz Bros. etc. v. International etc., Local 478, 126 N.J.L. 379, 19 A.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial