Leonardi v. Stemmler

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Leonardi v. Stemmler

86 N.Y.S. 242

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 242 (Leonardi v. Stemmler) 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

Leonardi v. Stemmler, 86 N.Y.S. 242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The printed record contains but one notice of appeal, namely, by defendant Stemmier, and no certificate that the case contains all the evidence taken on the trial. What was intended to be such certificate was not signed by either of the attorneys nor by the trial justice. Moreover, it sufficiently appears that the claim of the plaintiffs was for extra work only, and that it was based upon the original promise of Stemmier, as owner of the premises, to pay therefor. Upon this point there was a conflict of testimony, which [243]*243was determined by the trial justice in favor of the plaintiffs, and such determination should not be disturbed. Upon the exceptional facts disclosed, and no trial by jury having been demanded by the defendant Stemmier, the variance between the allegations of the complaint joining him as a contractor and the mechanic’s lien, as filed, naming him as the owner, is immaterial.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The printed record contains but one notice of appeal, namely, by defendant Stemmier, and no certificate that the case contains all the evidence taken on the trial. What was intended to be such certificate was not signed by either of the attorneys nor by the trial justice. Moreover, it sufficiently appears that the claim of the plaintiffs was for extra work only, and that it was based upon the original promise of Stemmier, as owner of the premises, to pay therefor. Upon this point there was a conflict of testimony, which [243]*243was determined by the trial justice in favor of the plaintiffs, and such determination should not be disturbed. Upon the exceptional facts disclosed, and no trial by jury having been demanded by the defendant Stemmier, the variance between the allegations of the complaint joining him as a contractor and the mechanic’s lien, as filed, naming him as the owner, is immaterial.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonardi-v-stemmler-nyappterm-1904.