New York & New Haven Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Andrews
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 12, 1901, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granting a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 12, 1901, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict directed by the court and granting a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The rule is absolutely well settled that in order to enable a party to recover upon a contract he must comply with whatever condition precedent there is contained therein. (Mittnacht v. Wolff, 6 N. Y. S. R. 44; Beebe v. Johnson, 19 Wend. 500; Baker v. Johnson, 42 N. Y.…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
At the close of the proofs in this case the learned trial court directed a verdict for the defendant and refused to submit any question to the jury, to which ruling and decision the plaintiff’s counsel excepted. This exception is fatal to the judgment, and hence it was properly reversed by the learned court below on appeal.
The action was upon a written contract dated September 19, 1889, whereby the plaintiff agreed to equip the defend, ant’s property with what is called the dry pipe system of automatic sprinklers, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Rew York board of fire…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Arc Electrical Construction Co. v. George A. Fuller Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Lynch v. StebbinsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1928
- Ketchum v. KetchumNew York Supreme Court · 1931