Legal Opinion
Carlson, Holmes & Bromstad, Inc. v. M. I. Stewart & Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 21, 1932PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.
Plaintiff, a Chicago concern, agreed to install a beauty parlor in the defendant’s store then in the course of construction on Fifth avenue in New York city. The materials were to be furnished by the plaintiff, who was to do all the work and labor incidental to the planning and building of the fixtures and their installation. The work was to be in accordance with detailed plans, specifications and measurements, based upon conditions in the defendant’s store. Plaintiff built the fixtures in accordance with the plans and specifications. There remained only the work of *608installation.. Defendant…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Assets Realization Co. v. . RothNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Eagle Paper Box Co. v. Gatti-McQuade Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1917
- Morse v. Canasawacta Knitting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Morse v. . Canasawacta Knitting CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Borup v. Von KokeritzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wm. H. Wise & Co. v. Rand McNally & CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Ben Construction Corp. v. VentreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- Schroeder v. Cedar Rapids Lodge No. 304Supreme Court of Iowa · 1951
- Carlson, Holmes & Bromstad, Inc. v. M. I. Stewart & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Ben Construction Corp. v. VentreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.