Lindeberg v. Hodgens

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lindeberg v. Hodgens

148 N.Y.S. 153

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 148 N.Y.S. 153 (Lindeberg v. Hodgens) 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

Lindeberg v. Hodgens, 148 N.Y.S. 153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs are architects, and sued the defendant for a balance due them for services in drawing plans, making estimates and superintending alterations of a dwelling house owned by the defendant at Greenwich, Conn. The defense in substance is that the plaintiffs negligently supervised the alterations, and permitted and allowed improper and inferior materials to' be used, and permitted the work to be done in an improper and an unworkmanlike manner.

Upon the trial the defendant attempted to show the then condition of the house, which was about two years after its completion. Evidence of this nature was excluded by the court upon plaintiffs’ objection as being too remote, and evidence tending to show that the condition of the house was the same at the time of the trial as it was when plaintiffs certified that it was completed was also excluded. This was manifestly error.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs are architects, and sued the defendant for a balance due them for services in drawing plans, making estimates and superintending alterations of a dwelling house owned by the defendant at Greenwich, Conn. The defense in substance is that the plaintiffs negligently supervised the alterations, and permitted and allowed improper and inferior materials to' be used, and permitted the work to be done in an improper and an unworkmanlike manner.

Upon the trial the defendant attempted to show the then condition of the house, which was about two years after its completion. Evidence of this nature was excluded by the court upon plaintiffs’ objection as being too remote, and evidence tending to show that the condition of the house was the same at the time of the trial as it was when plaintiffs certified that it was completed was also excluded. This was manifestly error.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.Y.S. 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindeberg-v-hodgens-nyappterm-1914.