H. P. Sickels Co. v. McCurdy & Norwell Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

H. P. Sickels Co. v. McCurdy & Norwell Co.

167 A.D. 948, 151 N.Y.S. 906

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D. 948 (H. P. Sickels Co. v. McCurdy & Norwell Co.) 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

H. P. Sickels Co. v. McCurdy & Norwell Co., 167 A.D. 948, 151 N.Y.S. 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The building was not, in fact, completed at the time the paper was delivered, and as the evidence tends to show neither the architect nor the parties to the contract themselves regarded the work covered by the contract as completed. The other certificates had been given to the plaintiff contractor and according to the testimony of the architect it was usual to give certificates of this character to the contractor and not to the owner. Mr. McCurdy, the president of the defendant, testifies that the paper was made at his request for the specific purpose of delivering it to the bank as a memorandum of the amount of money which had been paid on the building, and for no other purpose. We are of the opinion that it was a question of fact as to whether the paper delivered by the architect to the owner was a final certificate within the meaning of the contract, or a mere memorandum as claimed by the defendant. The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concurred. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam:

The building was not, in fact, completed at the time the paper was delivered, and as the evidence tends to show neither the architect nor the parties to the contract themselves regarded the work covered by the contract as completed. The other certificates had been given to the plaintiff contractor and according to the testimony of the architect it was usual to give certificates of this character to the contractor and not to the owner. Mr. McCurdy, the president of the defendant, testifies that the paper was made at his request for the specific purpose of delivering it to the bank as a memorandum of the amount of money which had been paid on the building, and for no other purpose. We are of the opinion that it was a question of fact as to whether the paper delivered by the architect to the owner was a final certificate within the meaning of the contract, or a mere memorandum as claimed by the defendant. The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concurred. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D. 948, 151 N.Y.S. 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-p-sickels-co-v-mccurdy-norwell-co-nyappdiv-1915.