Stagg v. Munro
New York Supreme Court
Error from the superior court of the city of New-York. On the 23d February, 1804, a contract was entered into between the parties, by which Stagg agreed to level a tract of land belonging to the defendants, adjoining Broadway in the city of New-York, according to certain ordinances and regulations of the corporation of the city, by digging down certain parts thereof and filling up the residue; the work to be done within 18 months.
Read the full summary
Error from the superior court of the city of New-York. On the 23d February, 1804, a contract was entered into between the parties, by which Stagg agreed to level a tract of land belonging to the defendants, adjoining Broadway in the city of New-York, according to certain ordinances and regulations of the corporation of the city, by digging down certain parts thereof and filling up the residue; the work to be done within 18 months. The defendants on their part engaged to pay him $10,000 for the work, $4000 to be paid as the work progressed, and balance, $6000, when the work* was completed. A…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.
It is not denied by the counsel for the plaintiff that the judge or court at nisiprius ought to nonsuit the plaintiff, when he does not produce sufficient evidence to warrant a verdict in his favour *, but it is contended that sufficient was shewn to justify a recovery in favor of the plaintiff for the balance of the $10,000 remaining unpaid. The plaintiff, in his declaration, had stated his cause of action to be a balance due him upon a contract under seal, and of course, set forth the contract. As it appeared by the contract that the money was not to be paid…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sandford v. HalseyNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- Manuel v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1841
- Cutter v. EmerySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1859