Leary v. City of Watervliet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leary v. City of Watervliet

178 A.D. 938

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

DecidedMay 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D. 938 (Leary v. City of Watervliet) 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

Leary v. City of Watervliet, 178 A.D. 938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Kellogg, P. J.

(dissenting): The proposal of the contractor, which is a part of the contract, provides that the plaintiff “ has carefully examined and fully understands the contract, plans and specifications hereto attached, and has made a personal examination of the site of the proposed work and the character of material to be encountered.” Section 34 of the specifications, also a part of the contract, provides: “ The contractor shall take all responsibility of the work, shall bear all losses resulting to him on account of the amount or character of the work, or because the nature of the land in or on which the work is done is different from what is assumed or was expected, or on account of the weather, floods or other causes,” etc. These provisions, in my judgment, prevent a recovery.

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

Kellogg, P. J.

(dissenting): The proposal of the contractor, which is a part of the contract, provides that the plaintiff “ has carefully examined and fully understands the contract, plans and specifications hereto attached, and has made a personal examination of the site of the proposed work and the character of material to be encountered.” Section 34 of the specifications, also a part of the contract, provides: “ The contractor shall take all responsibility of the work, shall bear all losses resulting to him on account of the amount or character of the work, or because the nature of the land in or on which the work is done is different from what is assumed or was expected, or on account of the weather, floods or other causes,” etc. These provisions, in my judgment, prevent a recovery.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D. 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leary-v-city-of-watervliet-nyappdiv-1917.