Duchatkiewicz v. Cohen

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Duchatkiewicz v. Cohen

136 A. 910, 5 N.J. Misc. 438, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 219

DecidedApril 6, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A. 910 (Duchatkiewicz v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duchatkiewicz v. Cohen, 136 A. 910, 5 N.J. Misc. 438, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 219 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a mechanics’ lien suit by builder against owner, for unpaid balance on the contract. The main defense offered at the trial was that in the written contract the consideration had been expressed as $57.50, when the real agreement was $3,750. No fraud inter, partes was claimed; it was the simple case of a party offering parol evidence to contradict the written instrument, and that evidence the judge very properly shut out. See, e. g., Booye v. Ries, 4 N. J. Adv. R. 1281.

The other point made relates to excluding certain memoranda which, as claimed for appellants, would show that defendants below were entitled to more credits than allowed by the court when directing a verdict. We cannot find that they were excluded, for it does not appear that they were offered. They were marked for identification A, B and C, but that appears to be all. At the end of the case the court and counsel checked up all the credits satisfactorily to defendant’s counsel, and the work on the building being admittedly complete, directed a verdict for the proper amount. This was manifestly correct.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a mechanics’ lien suit by builder against owner, for unpaid balance on the contract. The main defense offered at the trial was that in the written contract the consideration had been expressed as $57.50, when the real agreement was $3,750. No fraud inter, partes was claimed; it was the simple case of a party offering parol evidence to contradict the written instrument, and that evidence the judge very properly shut out. See, e. g., Booye v. Ries, 4 N. J. Adv. R. 1281.

The other point made relates to excluding certain memoranda which, as claimed for appellants, would show that defendants below were entitled to more credits than allowed by the court when directing a verdict. We cannot find that they were excluded, for it does not appear that they were offered. They were marked for identification A, B and C, but that appears to be all. At the end of the case the court and counsel checked up all the credits satisfactorily to defendant’s counsel, and the work on the building being admittedly complete, directed a verdict for the proper amount. This was manifestly correct.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A. 910, 5 N.J. Misc. 438, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duchatkiewicz-v-cohen-nj-1927.