McGratty v. Haberman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGratty v. Haberman

127 A.D. 199, 111 N.Y.S. 48, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1928

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

DecidedJune 5, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D. 199 (McGratty v. Haberman) 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

McGratty v. Haberman, 127 A.D. 199, 111 N.Y.S. 48, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The non-suit was proper. The plaintiffs have sued the wrong party. Horgan & Slattery had no authority to change the plans and specifications, or order any work or material not embraced therein and in the contract (Langley v. Rouss, 185 N. Y. 201). The statement in the brief for the plaintiffs that the carriage way [201]*201had to be changed because it was found by test that a carriage could not go through it, and was changed only to that extent, has no foundation — if that could make any difference.

The exceptions to 'the sustaining of the defendant’s objections to the questions of the .witness Horgan, an officer of Horgan & Slattery, whether he gave orders for work on the .building on his own authority, and had been in the habit of doing so, and of another witness as to the custom of architects in that respect, must also be overruled. That he had assumed authority which he did not have was no matter; and there can be no lawful custom to break contracts. Proprietors who build houses are not the mere victims in law of architects and contractors.

If it be taken as true that the plaintiffs did not know of the provisions of the contract of defendant with Horgan & Slattery, the case would not be changed. It was for them to find out what the authority of Horgan & Slattery was. But the sub-contract of the plaintiffs with the contractor also contains a provision that no alteration should be made in the work shown on the plans and specifications “ except upon a written order of the architects ”. The contract of the defendant with Reilly contained the same provision, and that no claim “ based upon any alleged verbal agreement ” should be’made. The claim of the plaintiffs for the amount paid by them in wages over the regular rate for work done after regular hours, when such work was made necessary by their being behind with their contract, needs no comment.

The motion for a new trial should be- denied.

Woodward, Hooker, Rich- and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Motion for new trial denied, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The non-suit was proper. The plaintiffs have sued the wrong party. Horgan & Slattery had no authority to change the plans and specifications, or order any work or material not embraced therein and in the contract (Langley v. Rouss, 185 N. Y. 201). The statement in the brief for the plaintiffs that the carriage way [201]*201had to be changed because it was found by test that a carriage could not go through it, and was changed only to that extent, has no foundation — if that could make any difference.

The exceptions to 'the sustaining of the defendant’s objections to the questions of the .witness Horgan, an officer of Horgan & Slattery, whether he gave orders for work on the .building on his own authority, and had been in the habit of doing so, and of another witness as to the custom of architects in that respect, must also be overruled. That he had assumed authority which he did not have was no matter; and there can be no lawful custom to break contracts. Proprietors who build houses are not the mere victims in law of architects and contractors.

If it be taken as true that the plaintiffs did not know of the provisions of the contract of defendant with Horgan & Slattery, the case would not be changed. It was for them to find out what the authority of Horgan & Slattery was. But the sub-contract of the plaintiffs with the contractor also contains a provision that no alteration should be made in the work shown on the plans and specifications “ except upon a written order of the architects ”. The contract of the defendant with Reilly contained the same provision, and that no claim “ based upon any alleged verbal agreement ” should be’made. The claim of the plaintiffs for the amount paid by them in wages over the regular rate for work done after regular hours, when such work was made necessary by their being behind with their contract, needs no comment.

The motion for a new trial should be- denied.

Woodward, Hooker, Rich- and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Motion for new trial denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D. 199, 111 N.Y.S. 48, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgratty-v-haberman-nyappdiv-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack