Brown v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Palmer

111 A.D. 909

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D. 909 (Brown v. Palmer) 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

Brown v. Palmer, 111 A.D. 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments reversed, with costs, and new trial ordered in Municipal Court. The order herein to be settled by and before Mr. Justice Hash on two days’ notice. Held, that the plaintiff having/ in good faith and without knowledge of any mistake, furnished material and caused his employees to put a roof on defendant’s barn in a manner satisfactory to and as directed by defendant, it is immaterial that the defendant did not know that such material was furnished by the plaintiff instead of another, and that his employees did the work. Having received the benefits resulting from the furnishing of the labor and materials, the defendant cannot avoid liability by asserting that he did not know the identity of the person who furnished and performed the same, and so, even although he had contracted with another party to do the same work and believed it was in fact being done by such other party. All concurred.

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

Judgments reversed, with costs, and new trial ordered in Municipal Court. The order herein to be settled by and before Mr. Justice Hash on two days’ notice. Held, that the plaintiff having/ in good faith and without knowledge of any mistake, furnished material and caused his employees to put a roof on defendant’s barn in a manner satisfactory to and as directed by defendant, it is immaterial that the defendant did not know that such material was furnished by the plaintiff instead of another, and that his employees did the work. Having received the benefits resulting from the furnishing of the labor and materials, the defendant cannot avoid liability by asserting that he did not know the identity of the person who furnished and performed the same, and so, even although he had contracted with another party to do the same work and believed it was in fact being done by such other party. All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D. 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-palmer-nyappdiv-1906.