Gardner v. McPotter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gardner v. McPotter

85 N.Y.S. 1131

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 85 N.Y.S. 1131 (Gardner v. McPotter) 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

Gardner v. McPotter, 85 N.Y.S. 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s claim is based on the employment of his assignor as an architect to prepare plans for the alteration of the defendant’s country house. The principal issue litigated upon the trial was the question whether the architect undertook that the proposed alterations should not cost more than $15,-000. Assuming that there was a contract on this subject, the most that the proof can be regarded as establishing is that the architect agreed that the cost should not exceed approximately $15,000, or should not be much more than that sum. Although the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the work called for by the architect’s plans could not be done for less than $20,000, there was testimony in behalf of the plaintiff sufficient to sustain the finding that the necessary expenditure would not be more than $16,000; and we are of opinion that this sum sufficiently approximated $15,-000 to entitle the architect to be paid for his services. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s claim is based on the employment of his assignor as an architect to prepare plans for the alteration of the defendant’s country house. The principal issue litigated upon the trial was the question whether the architect undertook that the proposed alterations should not cost more than $15,-000. Assuming that there was a contract on this subject, the most that the proof can be regarded as establishing is that the architect agreed that the cost should not exceed approximately $15,000, or should not be much more than that sum. Although the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the work called for by the architect’s plans could not be done for less than $20,000, there was testimony in behalf of the plaintiff sufficient to sustain the finding that the necessary expenditure would not be more than $16,000; and we are of opinion that this sum sufficiently approximated $15,-000 to entitle the architect to be paid for his services. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 N.Y.S. 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-mcpotter-nyappdiv-1903.