Chambers v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chambers v. State

220 A.D. 797

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

DecidedMay 15, 1927

DocketClaim No. 18226

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 A.D. 797 (Chambers v. State) 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

Chambers v. State, 220 A.D. 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The contract provided in substance that any portion of the concrete could be removed for inspection or for any other purpose; that if the inspection showed that the work was not in accordance with the contract, no payment should be made to the contractor for removal or replacement; otherwise, [798]*798the contractor was to be paid for such removal and replacement at contract prices. We agree with the Court of Claims that the work was performed in substantial accordance with the contract. The contractor was, therefore, entitled to payment only on the basis of contract prices. The judgment should be modified by reducing the amount of the award to $848, with interest from December 15, 1925, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Sawyer, JJ. Judgment modified by reducing the amount of the award to $848, with interest from December 15, 1925, and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Tenth finding of fact and third conclusion of law modified.

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

Per Curiam.

The contract provided in substance that any portion of the concrete could be removed for inspection or for any other purpose; that if the inspection showed that the work was not in accordance with the contract, no payment should be made to the contractor for removal or replacement; otherwise, [798]*798the contractor was to be paid for such removal and replacement at contract prices. We agree with the Court of Claims that the work was performed in substantial accordance with the contract. The contractor was, therefore, entitled to payment only on the basis of contract prices. The judgment should be modified by reducing the amount of the award to $848, with interest from December 15, 1925, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. All concur. Present — Hubbs, P. J., Clark, Sears, Crouch and Sawyer, JJ. Judgment modified by reducing the amount of the award to $848, with interest from December 15, 1925, and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Tenth finding of fact and third conclusion of law modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D. 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-state-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack