Conselyea v. . Blanchard
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the' second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 10, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. On the 11th day of December, 1880, the defendants Swift & Van Alten entered into a contract with the counties of Kings and Queens to build a swing-bridge over Newton creek,, which separates those counties.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the' second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 10, 1886, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. On the 11th day of December, 1880, the defendants Swift & Van Alten entered into a contract with the counties of Kings and Queens to build a swing-bridge over Newton creek,, which separates those counties. The contract-price was $7,800, one-half of which was to be paid by each county. The turntable of the bridge was to be the Blanchard &…
1Opinion of the CourtEarl, J.
The only claim the plaintiffs have to share in the fund in controversy and to have priority therein is based upon the two orders taken by their testator, for the first of which he paid $850, and for the second of which he paid $595. There was no evidence that the money thus advanced bore any rela tian to, or had any connection with, the bridge or its erection, and the plaintiffs claim priority of payment solely on the ground that these orders are prior in date to the other orders.
Blanchard & O’Rourke base their claim to priority of payment upon facts found by the judge at Special Term as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chenango Bridge Co. v. . PaigeNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
3Cited by10 opinions
- In re CramondDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1906
- Spengler v. Stiles-Tull Lumber Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1909
- Hay v. PetersonWyoming Supreme Court · 1896
- Cogan v. Conover Manufacturing Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1905
- Pappenheim v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co.The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.