Martinez v. Runkle
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On error to the Supreme Court. The declaration is upon a contract, under seal, entered into between Daniel Runkle, now deceased, and Lino Martinez, on the 2d day of November, 1881, and demands damages for the breach thereof.
Read the full summary
On error to the Supreme Court. The declaration is upon a contract, under seal, entered into between Daniel Runkle, now deceased, and Lino Martinez, on the 2d day of November, 1881, and demands damages for the breach thereof. It is recited in the contract that the city of Havana, in the-island of Cuba, was, at the date of the agreement, desirous-of constructing, or having constructed, water works to supply its inhabitants with water; that it was supposed that the city-would issue its bonds to the amount of $5,600,000 for that and other purposes connected therewith, and pay $2,200,000, in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The Chancellor.
That which was declared upon in. this case was an express contract for the performance of certain services at a specified price. The plaintiff’s claim is that he performed the contract upon his part and is entitled to the compensation stipulated for. The declaration does not pretend that there is any claim upon implied contract for which quantum meruit will lie. The issue in that behalf was first suggested in the court’s charge to the jury. It was not in the case made by the pleadings, nor was it adverted to or discussed by counsel…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Breslin v. Fries-Breslin Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1904
- Excelsior Electric Co. v. SweetSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1896
- Jordan v. ReedSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
- Merklinger v. LambertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1908
- Bierman v. StiefelSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.