Harris v. Mead
This text of 16 Abb. Pr. 257 (Harris v. Mead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There were but seven items in this case, under one date. Substantially, there were but two: putting in gas-pipes per contract, $54; plumbing work by contract, $80. The remainder were a few items of extras added to the plumbing work; and, with one exception, a marble top to wash-basin,. [259]*259$10, they were trifling in amount. Within the decisions, this was not a- case for a reference. (Smith a. Brown, 3 How. Pr., 9; Swift a. Wells, 2 Ib., 79; Miller a. Hooker, Ib., 171; Parker a. Snell, 10 Wend., 577; Van Rensselaer a. Jewett, 6 Hill, 373.)
Hilton and Beady, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 Abb. Pr. 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-mead-nyctcompl-1863.