John Johnson Construction Co. v. City of Jamestown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John Johnson Construction Co. v. City of Jamestown

197 A.D. 917

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

DecidedMay 15, 1921

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D. 917 (John Johnson Construction Co. v. City of Jamestown) 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

John Johnson Construction Co. v. City of Jamestown, 197 A.D. 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over within twenty days, upon payment of the costs of the motion and of this appeal. Held, that the statement in the complaint, “ That such agreement on the part of the city was made and accepted by such commission for the propose of providing against delays in the work of any contractor undertaking such improvement and for his benefit,” was a state[918]*918ment of fact or a conclusion of fact and not a conclusion of law, and as such was admitted by the demurrer. (Spies v. Munroe, 35 App. Div. 527; Rochester R. Co. v. Robinson, 133 N. Y. 242; Sultan of Turkey v. Tiryakian, 213 id. 429.) The questions of whether or not the agreement made between the city and the State was made for the benefit of the plaintiff, and if so made, whether or not it entitled the plaintiff to recover, should be determined upon the trial. All concur.

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

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the defendant to plead over within twenty days, upon payment of the costs of the motion and of this appeal. Held, that the statement in the complaint, “ That such agreement on the part of the city was made and accepted by such commission for the propose of providing against delays in the work of any contractor undertaking such improvement and for his benefit,” was a state[918]*918ment of fact or a conclusion of fact and not a conclusion of law, and as such was admitted by the demurrer. (Spies v. Munroe, 35 App. Div. 527; Rochester R. Co. v. Robinson, 133 N. Y. 242; Sultan of Turkey v. Tiryakian, 213 id. 429.) The questions of whether or not the agreement made between the city and the State was made for the benefit of the plaintiff, and if so made, whether or not it entitled the plaintiff to recover, should be determined upon the trial. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D. 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-johnson-construction-co-v-city-of-jamestown-nyappdiv-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack