Harris v. Mead

New York Court of Common Pleas

Harris v. Mead

16 Abb. Pr. 257

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided July 15, 1863·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Daly, F. J.

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

Daly, F. J.

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.

Harris v. Mead, 16 Abb. Pr. 257 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1863).

Pincite

16 Abb. Pr. 257 (Harris v. Mead) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related