Legal Opinion
Dowd v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 20, 1933No. Claim No. 19617PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
The provision of the contract making the final estimate of the engineer conclusive and binding upon the contractor is fatal to recovery here in the absence of bad faith, corruption or palpable mistake appearing on the face of the estimate. (Sweet v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 19; Perkins v. Giles, 50 id. 228; Barash v. Board of Education, 226 App. Div. 249; Molloy v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 145 id. 483; Sewer Commissioners v. Sullivan, 162 N. Y. 594, affg. 11 App. Div. 472.) As this provision of the contract seems not to have been considered by the Court of Claims, a new trial is ordered so…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sweet v. . MorrisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Sewer Commissioners v. SullivanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Sewer Commissioners of Amsterdam v. . SullivanNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Barash v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
3Cited by10 opinions
- BOARD OF WATER & SEWER COM'RS v. Bill Harbert Const. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2003
- Joseph Davis, Inc. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
- Thomas Crimmins Contracting Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Tufano Contracting Corp. v. Port of New York AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
- Yonkers Contracting Co. v. New York State Thruway AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.