Reichert v. Brown

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Reichert v. Brown

38 Misc. 782, 78 N.Y.S. 834

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 Misc. 782 (Reichert v. Brown) 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

Reichert v. Brown, 38 Misc. 782, 78 N.Y.S. 834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

The plaintiff suing to recover the sum of $124.50, balance due under contract for work and for extras, and the defendant counterclaiming in the sum of $129, for breach of contract, the justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $64.50, to which damages and costs were added. The only issue of law, faintheartedly pressed upon this appeal, is that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering for extra work done at the instance of the defendant unless such agreement were in writing and signed by the parties, as provided by the specifications. This contention is not good. While the plaintiff contracted to do “ brick work, rough and front work ” on six houses to-be erected by the defendant at $250 the house, and, “ according to plans and specifications ” drawn by one Dickerson, it does not appear that he incorporated all the provisions of the specifications into his contract, to be a part thereof, with the defendant, or, even if incorporated, that the same might not be subsequently modified, peculiarly so when it does not appear, strange as it may seem,' that the defendant ever furnished the specifications or a copy to the plaintiff or that the latter ever saw them. The plaintiff proved at least the sum of $52 as balance and $22.50 for extras, while the testimony of the defendant upon his counterclaim was confusing and confused, and at times e^en inconsistent. No reason appears, therefore, for disturbing the judgment of the trial justice upon the facts.

Ereedmah, P. J., and Gtlderslebve, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

The plaintiff suing to recover the sum of $124.50, balance due under contract for work and for extras, and the defendant counterclaiming in the sum of $129, for breach of contract, the justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $64.50, to which damages and costs were added. The only issue of law, faintheartedly pressed upon this appeal, is that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering for extra work done at the instance of the defendant unless such agreement were in writing and signed by the parties, as provided by the specifications. This contention is not good. While the plaintiff contracted to do “ brick work, rough and front work ” on six houses to-be erected by the defendant at $250 the house, and, “ according to plans and specifications ” drawn by one Dickerson, it does not appear that he incorporated all the provisions of the specifications into his contract, to be a part thereof, with the defendant, or, even if incorporated, that the same might not be subsequently modified, peculiarly so when it does not appear, strange as it may seem,' that the defendant ever furnished the specifications or a copy to the plaintiff or that the latter ever saw them. The plaintiff proved at least the sum of $52 as balance and $22.50 for extras, while the testimony of the defendant upon his counterclaim was confusing and confused, and at times e^en inconsistent. No reason appears, therefore, for disturbing the judgment of the trial justice upon the facts.

Ereedmah, P. J., and Gtlderslebve, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Misc. 782, 78 N.Y.S. 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reichert-v-brown-nyappterm-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack