Pultz v. Miller

New York Supreme Court

Pultz v. Miller

28 N.Y.S. 1114, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 884

DecidedMay 14, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 1114 (Pultz v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pultz v. Miller, 28 N.Y.S. 1114, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 884 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Dutchess county, affirming a judgment rendered in a court of a justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for $16.75 damages and costs. The action was for the recovery of $14 for work and material furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant in the erection of a building upon his premises. The house was erected or finished for the defendant by Ackert & Brown, and they ordered the work and material from the plaintiff. The work was bestowed upon the building, and the material was used in its erection. There was sufficient authority in Ackert & Brown to incur the liability for the defendant, and he had the benefit of the labor and material. There was no defense to the action, and there is no merit in the appeal. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Dutchess county, affirming a judgment rendered in a court of a justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for $16.75 damages and costs. The action was for the recovery of $14 for work and material furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant in the erection of a building upon his premises. The house was erected or finished for the defendant by Ackert & Brown, and they ordered the work and material from the plaintiff. The work was bestowed upon the building, and the material was used in its erection. There was sufficient authority in Ackert & Brown to incur the liability for the defendant, and he had the benefit of the labor and material. There was no defense to the action, and there is no merit in the appeal. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 1114, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pultz-v-miller-nysupct-1894.