Sunoco Service Corp. v. Cochrane Motors, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sunoco Service Corp. v. Cochrane Motors, Inc.

151 A. 91, 8 N.J. Misc. 585, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129

DecidedJuly 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A. 91 (Sunoco Service Corp. v. Cochrane Motors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sunoco Service Corp. v. Cochrane Motors, Inc., 151 A. 91, 8 N.J. Misc. 585, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This suit was brought to recover compensation for the breach of a contract entered into by the respective litigants and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The only ground upon which the defendants seek to reverse the judgment is that the trial court erroneously refused to strike out the plaintiff’s complaint upon the motion of defendants’ counsel.

By the terms of the contract between the parties the plaintiff was to do certain concrete work, including curbing and grading upon the premises of the motors corporation for a specified sum, the payment of which was guaranteed by the defendants J. Eoy Martin and Chester W. Martin. The complaint avers default by the Cochrane concern in making a payment due to the plaintiff for work and labor done and materials furnished by it under the contract, and the refusal of the defendants J. Eoy Martin and Chester W. Martin to comply with the terms of their contract to guarantee and make the payment upon which the Cochrane Motors Com[586]*586pany had defaulted. Clearly, these averments, if true, disclose liability on the part of the defendants and entitle the plaintiff, in the absence of any defense to the merits being interposed, to a judgment against them.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This suit was brought to recover compensation for the breach of a contract entered into by the respective litigants and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The only ground upon which the defendants seek to reverse the judgment is that the trial court erroneously refused to strike out the plaintiff’s complaint upon the motion of defendants’ counsel.

By the terms of the contract between the parties the plaintiff was to do certain concrete work, including curbing and grading upon the premises of the motors corporation for a specified sum, the payment of which was guaranteed by the defendants J. Eoy Martin and Chester W. Martin. The complaint avers default by the Cochrane concern in making a payment due to the plaintiff for work and labor done and materials furnished by it under the contract, and the refusal of the defendants J. Eoy Martin and Chester W. Martin to comply with the terms of their contract to guarantee and make the payment upon which the Cochrane Motors Com[586]*586pany had defaulted. Clearly, these averments, if true, disclose liability on the part of the defendants and entitle the plaintiff, in the absence of any defense to the merits being interposed, to a judgment against them.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A. 91, 8 N.J. Misc. 585, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sunoco-service-corp-v-cochrane-motors-inc-nj-1930.