Miller v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. State

247 A.D. 850

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1936

DocketClaim No. 22098

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 850 (Miller v. State) 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

Miller v. State, 247 A.D. 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing claim upon the merits. ■ Appellant's entered into a contract with the State for the construction of a shoe shpp.atlSing Sing Prison. They were required to place vertical rod reinforcing steel throughout .the length of sixty interior round concrete columns. ■ They claimed that- .the plans and specifications did not call for this reinforcement and that they did not know of such requirement until after the work had been in progress for some time. They had, however, within a few days after signing the contract and before entering upon the work, called the attention of. the State to the fact that the plans did not indicate the size and amount of reinforcing to be used in these columns and that the company from which they were purchasing this reinforcement could not make up the same without further information-and they asked the State for such information. Judgment unanimously-affirmed,-with costs.. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ. ■ .

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

Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing claim upon the merits. ■ Appellant's entered into a contract with the State for the construction of a shoe shpp.atlSing Sing Prison. They were required to place vertical rod reinforcing steel throughout .the length of sixty interior round concrete columns. ■ They claimed that- .the plans and specifications did not call for this reinforcement and that they did not know of such requirement until after the work had been in progress for some time. They had, however, within a few days after signing the contract and before entering upon the work, called the attention of. the State to the fact that the plans did not indicate the size and amount of reinforcing to be used in these columns and that the company from which they were purchasing this reinforcement could not make up the same without further information-and they asked the State for such information. Judgment unanimously-affirmed,-with costs.. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ. ■ .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-nyappdiv-1936.