Bewley v. City of Lockport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bewley v. City of Lockport

239 A.D. 751, 263 N.Y.S. 109

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D. 751 (Bewley v. City of Lockport) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bewley v. City of Lockport, 239 A.D. 751, 263 N.Y.S. 109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The written order, Exhibit 2, was intended as an order for an extra, but as such was not in compliance with the contract, as it was not approved by the city council. The plaintiff, therefore,- cannot recover upon the contract as for an- extra.- The city engineer was' not shown to have authority to order this work done. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover the value of the work done on the order of the city engineer and independent of the contract. There is an absence of proof of a breach of the contract by the city under the principle stated in Borough Const. Co. v. City of New York (200 N. Y. 149). There was no dispute between the contractor and the city or its representative as to whether the work of leveling the foundation was within the contract. The corporation counsel was not consulted as required by the contract in case of dispute. The city engineer did not rule that the leveling of the base was within the contract. The plaintiff did not do the work under protest. The plaintiff, therefore, has failed to make out a case either as alleged in the complaint or for breach of contract. All concur. Judgment reversed on the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed with- costs. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusions made.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The written order, Exhibit 2, was intended as an order for an extra, but as such was not in compliance with the contract, as it was not approved by the city council. The plaintiff, therefore,- cannot recover upon the contract as for an- extra.- The city engineer was' not shown to have authority to order this work done. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover the value of the work done on the order of the city engineer and independent of the contract. There is an absence of proof of a breach of the contract by the city under the principle stated in Borough Const. Co. v. City of New York (200 N. Y. 149). There was no dispute between the contractor and the city or its representative as to whether the work of leveling the foundation was within the contract. The corporation counsel was not consulted as required by the contract in case of dispute. The city engineer did not rule that the leveling of the base was within the contract. The plaintiff did not do the work under protest. The plaintiff, therefore, has failed to make out a case either as alleged in the complaint or for breach of contract. All concur. Judgment reversed on the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed with- costs. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusions made.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 751, 263 N.Y.S. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bewley-v-city-of-lockport-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack