Freston v. Lawrence Cement Co.

New York Supreme Court

Freston v. Lawrence Cement Co.

30 N.Y.S. 144, 78 Hun 96, 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 96, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 835

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 26, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 N.Y.S. 144 (Freston v. Lawrence Cement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freston v. Lawrence Cement Co., 30 N.Y.S. 144, 78 Hun 96, 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 96, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 835 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYHAM, P. J.

There is no disputed, question of fact in this case. The whole case turns upon the construction to be given to the contract under which the cement was furnished by the plaintiff. The trial judge held that, as the plaintiff undertook to quarry, burn, [145]*145and deliver the cement at the dock, he was by the terms of the contract required to do, at his own expense, all that was necessary to accomplish that purpose, and that, as it required wood and coal to prepare the cement, he was required, at his own expense, to furnish the same. His monthly deliveries of cement were therefore-properly charged in the receipts with the coal received of the defendant, and the considerations for the receipt were not open to examination. We think his interpretation of the contract was correct, and that he committed no error on the trial for which the judgment should be reversed. Ho opinion seems to be required. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

MAYHAM, P. J.

There is no disputed, question of fact in this case. The whole case turns upon the construction to be given to the contract under which the cement was furnished by the plaintiff. The trial judge held that, as the plaintiff undertook to quarry, burn, [145]*145and deliver the cement at the dock, he was by the terms of the contract required to do, at his own expense, all that was necessary to accomplish that purpose, and that, as it required wood and coal to prepare the cement, he was required, at his own expense, to furnish the same. His monthly deliveries of cement were therefore-properly charged in the receipts with the coal received of the defendant, and the considerations for the receipt were not open to examination. We think his interpretation of the contract was correct, and that he committed no error on the trial for which the judgment should be reversed. Ho opinion seems to be required. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.Y.S. 144, 78 Hun 96, 85 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 96, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freston-v-lawrence-cement-co-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack