Legal Opinion
Jacob Youngs, Incorporated v. . Kent
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 8, 1921PublishedCited by 12 opinions
Motion for re-argument. (See 230 N. Y. 239.)
1Per curiam
The court did not overlook the specification which provides that defective work shall be replaced. The promise to replace, • like the promise to install, is to be viewed, not as a condition, but as independent and collateral, when the defect is trivial and innocent. The law does not nullify the covenant, but restricts the remedy to damages.
The motion for a re-argument should be denied.
His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.
Motion denied.
2Cited by12 opinions
- Mann v. ClowserSupreme Court of Virginia · 1950
- Anderson Clayton & Co. v. Alanthus Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Kenney v. Medlin Construction & Realty Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- Edgewater Construction Co. v. 81 & 3 of Watertown, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- R & R Wrecking Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.