International Time Recording Co. v. Southern Surety Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

International Time Recording Co. v. Southern Surety Co.

142 Misc. 501, 254 N.Y.S. 668, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 921

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 142 Misc. 501 (International Time Recording Co. v. Southern Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

International Time Recording Co. v. Southern Surety Co., 142 Misc. 501, 254 N.Y.S. 668, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bond set forth in the complaint provides that any one furnishing materials or rendering services to the principal may maintain an action on the bond as though named therein. Under such circumstances the plaintiff, which, it is alleged, furnished labor and materials for which it has not been paid, can maintain this action against the defendant surety company as one of the beneficiaries for whose protection the bond was required to be given. (Strong v. American Fence Construction Co., 245 N. Y. 48; Maltby & Sons v. Wade, 131 Misc. 143; affd., 224 App. Div. 779.) The complaint is insufficient, however, in faffing to allege the amount of the bond, and thereby failing to disclose whether the defendant is liable at all. The order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, but with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint.

Order affirmed, with disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within six days after service of order entered hereon upon payment of said disbursements.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The bond set forth in the complaint provides that any one furnishing materials or rendering services to the principal may maintain an action on the bond as though named therein. Under such circumstances the plaintiff, which, it is alleged, furnished labor and materials for which it has not been paid, can maintain this action against the defendant surety company as one of the beneficiaries for whose protection the bond was required to be given. (Strong v. American Fence Construction Co., 245 N. Y. 48; Maltby & Sons v. Wade, 131 Misc. 143; affd., 224 App. Div. 779.) The complaint is insufficient, however, in faffing to allege the amount of the bond, and thereby failing to disclose whether the defendant is liable at all. The order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, but with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint.

Order affirmed, with disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint within six days after service of order entered hereon upon payment of said disbursements.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 501, 254 N.Y.S. 668, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-time-recording-co-v-southern-surety-co-nyappterm-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack