E. J. Eddy, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

E. J. Eddy, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

240 A.D. 284, 269 N.Y.S. 24, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 284 (E. J. Eddy, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland) 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

E. J. Eddy, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 240 A.D. 284, 269 N.Y.S. 24, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The extension of time for the payment of the contractor’s obligation for fifteen days by the taking of a note did not discharge the defendant from its obligation to the plaintiff upon the bond. (Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co., 191 U. S. 416; People v. Traves, 188 Mich. 345; Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth, 202 Mass. 326.) The provision of the ordinance of the city of Buffalo requiring notice to the corporation counsel of the commencement of the action and subsequent proceedings therein, must be read as a part of the bond, inasmuch as the bond was given for the primary purpose of protecting the city. The provisions of the ordinance are directed to a full accomplishment of this purpose. Compliance with this provision of the ordinance was a condition precedent to recovery. It is on this ground solely that we affirm the judgment.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The extension of time for the payment of the contractor’s obligation for fifteen days by the taking of a note did not discharge the defendant from its obligation to the plaintiff upon the bond. (Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co., 191 U. S. 416; People v. Traves, 188 Mich. 345; Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth, 202 Mass. 326.) The provision of the ordinance of the city of Buffalo requiring notice to the corporation counsel of the commencement of the action and subsequent proceedings therein, must be read as a part of the bond, inasmuch as the bond was given for the primary purpose of protecting the city. The provisions of the ordinance are directed to a full accomplishment of this purpose. Compliance with this provision of the ordinance was a condition precedent to recovery. It is on this ground solely that we affirm the judgment.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 284, 269 N.Y.S. 24, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-j-eddy-inc-v-fidelity-deposit-co-of-maryland-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack