Woods v. Illinois Central Railroad
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion on the part of the defendant for extra allowance under section 309 of the Code. The facts are briefly these: The plaintiffs commenced an action in this cotirt, to recover for labor, materials, &c., furnished and expended by them as contractors for the building of a portion of the railroad above named, and alleged in their complaint that an accounting ivas had between them and the defendant, that the sum of $13,300.15 was found to be due, and that the…
Read the full summary
This was a motion on the part of the defendant for extra allowance under section 309 of the Code. The facts are briefly these: The plaintiffs commenced an action in this cotirt, to recover for labor, materials, &c., furnished and expended by them as contractors for the building of a portion of the railroad above named, and alleged in their complaint that an accounting ivas had between them and the defendant, that the sum of $13,300.15 was found to be due, and that the defendant then promised but failed to pay the same. There was also set out in the complaint a claim for damages accrued to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Barnard, Justice,
held that although such was the language of section 309, the meaning intended by the legisla, ture would doubtless have been better expressed, had the. *287disjunctive “ or ” been used instead of the conjunctive “ and;” that the word “ extraordinary” meant “ notoriety”—“ exciting public attention,” &c.—which certainly was not an element in the present case; but, inasmuch as it would be almost impossible to find a case both “ difficult and extra-, ordinary,” and also, inasmuch as Judge Allen’s ruling at the circuit has excited comment, the case was evidently a “ difficult” one,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Coffin v. CokeNew York Supreme Court · 1875