Beach v. Hungerford
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL by the defendants from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The referee reported that he found the following facts: That the defendants made a contract with the Lake Ontario, Auburn and New York Rail Road Company, to build a portion of their road. By this contract the defendants agreed to pay their laborers and indemnify the rail road company, who might retain, under the direction of the engineer, enough to pay them.
Read the full summary
APPEAL by the defendants from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The referee reported that he found the following facts: That the defendants made a contract with the Lake Ontario, Auburn and New York Rail Road Company, to build a portion of their road. By this contract the defendants agreed to pay their laborers and indemnify the rail road company, who might retain, under the direction of the engineer, enough to pay them. That William A. Deland was a subcontractor under them to build a portion of said road, and Deland agreed to pay his laborers; and that the defendants might…
1Opinion of the Court
*261 By the Court,
Johnson, P. J.
I think the referee was right in holding that it was of no consequence in this action whether these laborers under Deland, the sub-contractor, had or had not a legal claim against the rail road company for their services. He was also right in his conclusions of law, that the case did not come within the statute of fraudSj as he found the facts to exist. It appears from the evidence that Deland, who employed the laborers, was a sub-contractor under the defendants. The defendants, in their contract with Deland, had the right to retain from him, in their own hands,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shoemaker v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Stoddard v. GrahamNew York Supreme Court · 1861