Byrne v. John Gillies Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Byrne v. John Gillies Co.

144 A.D. 677, 129 N.Y.S. 602, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216

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

DecidedMay 26, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 144 A.D. 677 (Byrne v. John Gillies Co.) 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

Byrne v. John Gillies Co., 144 A.D. 677, 129 N.Y.S. 602, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Rich, J.:

This action is brought to recover for work and materials, and the complaint, in a single cause of action, alleges “That the agreed and reasonable value of the said materials and said work, labor and services was the sum of Two hundred and seventy-six and 40/100 ($276.40) Dollars.” Upon the trial the ' plaintiff was required to elect as to whether he would proceed upon the theory of an express contract, or upon a quantum meruit, and he chose to proceed upon the theory of a special contract. There is evidence, given by witnesses produced by the defendants, upon which plaintiff might have recovered upon a quantum meruit to the extent of from seventy to eighty dollars, and it was improper to preclude a recovery upon a quantum meruit or to compel the election. (Walar v. Rechnitz, 126 App. Div. 424; Rubin v. Cohen, 129 id. 395; Lockhart v. Hamlin, 190 N. Y. 132; 1 Nichols N. Y. Pr, 1085.) . While it does not appear that an exception was taken to this ruling, nevertheless the error was one of law and this court has jurisdiction to review it. (Engler v. Richardson, 133 App. Div. 419.)

The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, P.' J., Hirsohberg, Burr and Woodward, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Rich, J.:

This action is brought to recover for work and materials, and the complaint, in a single cause of action, alleges “That the agreed and reasonable value of the said materials and said work, labor and services was the sum of Two hundred and seventy-six and 40/100 ($276.40) Dollars.” Upon the trial the ' plaintiff was required to elect as to whether he would proceed upon the theory of an express contract, or upon a quantum meruit, and he chose to proceed upon the theory of a special contract. There is evidence, given by witnesses produced by the defendants, upon which plaintiff might have recovered upon a quantum meruit to the extent of from seventy to eighty dollars, and it was improper to preclude a recovery upon a quantum meruit or to compel the election. (Walar v. Rechnitz, 126 App. Div. 424; Rubin v. Cohen, 129 id. 395; Lockhart v. Hamlin, 190 N. Y. 132; 1 Nichols N. Y. Pr, 1085.) . While it does not appear that an exception was taken to this ruling, nevertheless the error was one of law and this court has jurisdiction to review it. (Engler v. Richardson, 133 App. Div. 419.)

The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, P.' J., Hirsohberg, Burr and Woodward, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D. 677, 129 N.Y.S. 602, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-john-gillies-co-nyappdiv-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack