Lewis v. City of New York

106 A.D. 454, 94 N.Y.S. 710, 1905 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1905·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Ingraham, J.:

Coal being needed for the various armories in the city of New York in the winter' of 1903, and the- armory board having made efforts to procure coal without success, in consequence of a strike that had existed, the plaintiff, at the request of the secretary, of the armory board, delivered to the board the following communication:

[455] “ New York, December 18th, 1902.
“ The Armory Board of the City of New York,
“ Mr. John P. Gustaveson. Secretary:
Dear Sir.— In answer to your request. of December 15th, 1902, in regard to furnishing coal to the different Armories, I hereby propose and agree, subject to your acceptance to furnish pea coal, size No. 1, to such Armories as you may name for and at the price of Nine dollars ($9.00) per gross ton delivered alongside of any dock within the New York Harbor towing limits, and can guarantee delivery within three days from date of order.
“ In event of your acceptance will allow you five lay days to discharge the cargo of coal, and in event of detention longer than this period at dock, the captain will be entitled to a demurrage charge, $5.00 per day, after five days from reporting day; you to pay extra towing if the boat is to be shifted from its original consignment.
“ Yours very truly,
“ SAMUEL LEWIS.”

In answer to this communication Mr. Gustaveson, the secretary of the armory board, gave to the plaintiff various orders for coal which are substantially alike, one of which is as follows :

“ The Armory Board,
“ Secretary’s Office, 280 Broadway,
“ Telephone 2115 Franklin.
“ New York, Jany. 2nd, 1903.
“ Samuel Lewis, 126 Pearl St., Manhattan :
“ Please furnish between 30 and 35 Gross Tons No. 1 Pea Coal for Troop ‘ 0 ’ Armory, and deliver same at dock designated by Mr. Emerson, Coal Inspector,, as per your proposal of December 18th, 1902, for and on account of The Armory Board, and send bill in duplicate and this order, and the delivery receipt attached, to the office of the Secretary, 280 Broadway.
“ I certify to the necessity of the above work or supplies, and that the expenditure therefor has been duly authorized and appropriated.
• “(Signed) JOHN P. GUSTAVESON,
“ Secretary.”

[456] In pursuance of this order the plaintiff furnished coal to various armories which was received and used to heat them between Decern- • her 31, 1902, and January 23, 1903, .costing, at the price named by plaintiff, $2,606.76. None of the various lots of coal thus furnished exceeded $1,000 in amount. Bills were presented to the city for the coal delivered to each armory, and attached to each bill was a certificate that the account had been examined and was believed to be correct; that the prices charged were just and reasonable and that the said articles had been or would be used for and applied’to the service, and that the payment of the amount of said account would not exceed the unexpended balance Of the sum duly appropriated by law for the purpose thereof by the members of the armory board.

The comptroller refused to pay these bills upon the ground that the coal was not furnished in pursuance of h contract made as, required by the Military Code, whereupon the plaintiff brought this action.

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

Lewis v. City of New York, 106 A.D. 454, 94 N.Y.S. 710, 1905 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

106 A.D. 454 (Lewis v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moriarty v. City of New York
59 Misc. 204 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Horgan & Slattery v. City of New York
114 A.D. 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906)