lard [the employee], and the former, having sustained damage by reason of such interference, can maintain an action therefor." (3.) TRIANGLE FILM CORP. V. ARTCRAFT PICTURE CORP., 250 Fed. 981, 163 C. C. A. 231 (March 4, 1918), abstract. A moving picture actor contracted with a production company to appear in certain pictures which were to be manufactured by the employer under the supervision of a certain named person. On the day the contract was entered into this person was in plaintiff's employment. Subsequently, he entered the employ of the defendant, having sold his interest in the employer's company. Thereupon the actor also applied to defendant and was persuaded by it to accept the offer then made by it. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals held, affirming the judgment of the District Court, that in the absence of monopolistic purpose every one has the right to offer better terms to another's employee, so long as the latter is free to leave, and as the condition upon which the actor was employed was that he was to work under the supervision of a designated person who had left plaintiff's employ, the actor was also at liberty to leave, and hence the order denying the injunction was proper. IV. GARNISHEE PROCESS A. SUFFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO WARRANT WILLIAM F. KASTING Co. v. WHITTLE, 174 App. Div. 224 (June 30, 1916), abstract. An employee earned forty-nine dollars a month, and had the use of a house reasonably worth twenty dollars. It appeared that under an agreement with defendant's brother and defendant's employer, the latter built a house on a lot belonging to the former which was to be occupied by defendant's maiden sister, who was upwards of 60 years of age, and was without means of support. It was agreed that the defendant should reside with her, and should furnish her with food, fuel and light. Reversing an order directing that an execution be issued the court said: "Concededly wages of forty-nine dollars per month for fifty-two weeks of the year do not constitute sufficient earnings to warrant issuing a garnishee execution, and clearly the whole rental value of the house of twenty dollars per month cannot properly be included as part of the earnings of the defendant. It is not claimed that the defendant had theretofore been placed under any legal obligation to support his sister. Whether the value of the right given to the defendant to live in the house with his sister, which must be considered not a mere gratuity but as part of defendant's earnings, exceeds the reasonable value of the fuel, light and food necessarily furnished by him to her, does not appear. If it does exceed it, then I think the surplus constitutes earnings which should be added to the wages of forty-nine dollars per month, and upon the total the right to a garnishee execution should be determined. The only statement bearing upon the subject is found in the affidavit of the son to the effect that the forty-nine dollars wages is actually necessary for the living expenses of the defendant and his sister. The word earnings' is a more comprehensive term than the word 'wages.' Its signification is sufficiently extensive to include not only the monthly wages paid the defendant but also the pecuniary benefit to the defendant resulting from the agreement relative to the maintenance of the sister and the right of the defendant to live in the house free of charge." B. PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND NOT PLACE OF RECEIPT OF WAGES AS DETERMINING JURISDICTION MORRIS PLAN Co. v. MILLER, 102 Misc. 470 (Feb., 1918), abstract. A New York corporation had a factory in another state, but for all other purposes such factory had a legal residence in this state. Defendant's wages were paid at the factory. On motion to vacate a garnishee order the court held that the situs of the contract controlled and, therefore, it could not be said that the money due the judgment debtor was beyond its reach. LIST OF CASES Adelstein v. Roebling Const. Co., 95 Misc. 125... Amberg v. Kinley, 214 N. Y. 531, aff'g 160 App. Div. 232. PAGE .32 84 .176 .79, 83 49 Blanchard Co., Isaac H. v. Rome Metallic Bedstead Co., 184 App. Div. 187 Bossert v. Dhuy, 221 N. Y. 342, rev'g 166 App. Div. 251. Bubeck v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 180 App. Div. 545. Carr v. Gottschaldt, 181 App. Div. 810.. Cassin v. Stillman, Delehanty-Ferris Co., 185 App. Div. 63. .84 .153 .89 .52 74 .31 .135 .42 42 113 41 1 .118 Cockcroft v. Mitchell, 101 Misc. 211, aff'd 187 App. Div. 185. Duratio v. Jackson, 174 App. Div. 88, aff'd 223 N. Y. 692. 125 U. S. 158 Friedman v. Bender, 180 App. Div. 920, aff'd 224 N. Y. 643. 129 Gilpin v. Ruppert, 170 App. Div. 405, aff'd 223 N. Y. 613.. .113 100 Gold v. Froman, 175 App. Div. 815. 78 Goldberg v. Borden's Condensed Milk Co., 227 N. Y. 465, aff'g 185 App. PAGE .95 Grassi Contracting Co. v. Bennett, 174 App. Div. 244.. .131, 132, 147 120 .45 .129 Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175.... .14 Heitkamper v. Hoffman, 99 Misc. 543. 150, 183 Hess v. Bernheimer & Schwartz Pilsener Brewing Co., 219 N. Y. 415......119 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229. 148 Holsapple v. International Paper Co., 216 N. Y. 746.. ..32 ..63 Irwin v. Simon, 181 App. Div. 93.. 75 Ithaca Trust Co. v. Driscoll Bros. Co., 169 App. Div. 377. Kasting Co., Wliliam F. v. Whittle, 174 App. Div. 224. Keeler Building Co., Peter, v. Titchener, 190 App. Div. 135. Levberg v. Schumacher, 225 N. Y. 167, rev'g 173 App. Div. 640. .77 .38, 55 .187 Lyles v. Terry & Tench Co., 227 N. Y. 361, rev'g 172 App. Div. 496. Mautsewich v. United States Gypsum Co., 217 N. Y. 593, aff'g 162 App. .106 Michaels v. Hillman, 112 Misc. 395... 137 Michalski v. American Machine & Foundry Co., 225 N. Y. 294. .81 Minsky v. Offenberg, 169 App. Div. 586..... 82 Mizak v. Carborundum Co., 172 App. Div. 627.. .52 Molloy v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 217 N. Y. 577. 17 Morris Plan Co. v. Miller, 102 Misc. 470.. 197 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Mooney, 223 Fed. 626. Pellegrino v. Smith Co., Clarence L., 226 N. Y. 165.... ..115 Pelow v. Oswego Construction Co., 217 N. Y. 506, aff'g 162 App. Div. 506 117 PAGE People v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc., 218 N. Y. 115, rev'g 169 App. People ex rel. Cockcroft v. Miller, 187 App. Div. 704. People v. Diamond, 95 Misc. 114... People v. Eberhart, 171 App. Div. 458. People v. Epstean, 102 Misc. 476.... People v. Interborough Transit Co., 169 App. Div. 32. People ex rel. Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Leo, 112 Misc. 325. People v. Louis K. Liggett Co., 227 N. Y. 617... People v. Luna Amusement Co., 178 App. Div. 797. ..128 .85, 88 101 ..20 ..191 13, 25 .61 .108 .108 .20 .75, 104 .95 People v. Niagara Falls Power Co., 86 Misc. 61.. .75, 103 .109 People v. Pullman, 166 App. Div. 99. People v. Transit Develpoment Co., 178 App. Div. 288. .23 .22 Posner Co. v. Jackson, 223 N. Y. 325... Reardon v. Caton, 185 App. Div. 501, rev'g 107 Misc. 541... Rice v. Cummings, 189 App. Div. 832, aff'd 220 N. Y. 564. Richland Queen, The, 254 Fed. 668..... Rinando v. Weeks & Sons, 172 App. Div. 319.. 193 175 Reardon v. International Mercantile Marine Co., 189 App. Div. 515, rev'g 107 Misc. 541.. 174 .44 .185 .59 Triangle Film Corp. v. Artcraft Picture Corp., 250 Fed. 981. Wiemers v. American Fidelity Co., 181 App. Div. 774.. ..89 Wolff v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, 185 App. Div. 436. .89 15 |