Legal Opinion
Hummel v. Stern
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo
Decided December 18, 1895PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Appeal from jury term. Action by James H. Hummel against Isaac Stern and others to recover $350, alleged to be due on a contract. The complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtMcADAM, J.
The action is on a contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to put in the defendants’ premises a ventilating machine for $350. The condition thereof affecting the present contention is as follows:
“We guaranty to ventilate receiving room to your satisfaction; otherwise, we will remove wheel and other material without cost to you, and put receiving room in as good order as we found it, without any charge to you.”
The plaintiff proved that the work had been done in a proper manner, and rested. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted. The reason for the dismissal…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Brown v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. . GardenNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Zaleski v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
- Russell v. . AllertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Tyler v. AmesNew York Supreme Court · 1872
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Richison v. MeadSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
- Dermody v. FlesherAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1898
- Ransom v. WheelwrightAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1896
- Hummel v. SternAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- McNevin v. Solvay Process Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898