Estates of Long Beach v. New Jersey Terminal Dock & Improvement Co.

Second Circuit

Estates of Long Beach v. New Jersey Terminal Dock & Improvement Co.

195 F. 260, 115 C.C.A. 232, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1375

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 1912

DocketNo. 154

StatusPublished

This text of 195 F. 260 (Estates of Long Beach v. New Jersey Terminal Dock & Improvement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estates of Long Beach v. New Jersey Terminal Dock & Improvement Co., 195 F. 260, 115 C.C.A. 232, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1375 (2d Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The services for which the plaintiff recovered were specially provided for in the contract evidenced by the plaintiff’s letter of May 29, 1907, and the acceptance by the defendant on the same day. These letters created a separate contract to do certain work, entirely distinct from the general contract, which was held in abeyance, pending certain tests, etc., which had not been completed. The plaintiff performed the contract in suit, but the defendant failed to perform, and this action was brought to recover damages for the breach.

The questions are not intricate, and have been carefully considered, and we think correctly decided in the court below.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs, on the report and opinion of the referee and the opinion of the district judge.

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

PER CURIAM.

The services for which the plaintiff recovered were specially provided for in the contract evidenced by the plaintiff’s letter of May 29, 1907, and the acceptance by the defendant on the same day. These letters created a separate contract to do certain work, entirely distinct from the general contract, which was held in abeyance, pending certain tests, etc., which had not been completed. The plaintiff performed the contract in suit, but the defendant failed to perform, and this action was brought to recover damages for the breach.

The questions are not intricate, and have been carefully considered, and we think correctly decided in the court below.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs, on the report and opinion of the referee and the opinion of the district judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 F. 260, 115 C.C.A. 232, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estates-of-long-beach-v-new-jersey-terminal-dock-improvement-co-ca2-1912.