Cohen v. Schneider

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Schneider

86 N.Y.S. 1132

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 1132 (Cohen v. Schneider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Schneider, 86 N.Y.S. 1132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLBAN, J.

One Solomon Sashinsky undertook to do for the defendants certain work, specified in detail, and with a provision: “No extra work allowed, unless ordered in writing by the owners.” Claiming to have done, at the request of the defendant, certain extra work, he assigned his claim to the palintiff, who brought this action, in which the defendants contended that the work called extra was within the work specifically undertaken by Sashinsky, and that they had not given the orders or made the requests alleged. Both defenses were made good by the evidence, as was found by the learned justice, whose judgment in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the defendants. All concur.

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

MacLBAN, J.

One Solomon Sashinsky undertook to do for the defendants certain work, specified in detail, and with a provision: “No extra work allowed, unless ordered in writing by the owners.” Claiming to have done, at the request of the defendant, certain extra work, he assigned his claim to the palintiff, who brought this action, in which the defendants contended that the work called extra was within the work specifically undertaken by Sashinsky, and that they had not given the orders or made the requests alleged. Both defenses were made good by the evidence, as was found by the learned justice, whose judgment in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the defendants. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 1132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-schneider-nyappterm-1904.