Quintard v. De Wolf
New York Supreme Court
THE complaint in this action alleged that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff for the construction hy the plaintiff of a gold crushing machine, and that the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to pay to the plaintiff therefor the sum of $2500. And also that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff for the making hy the plaintiff for the defendant of a fly-wheel, to he attached to said machine, for the sum of $ 125. The defendant, hy his answer, denied these…
Read the full summary
THE complaint in this action alleged that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff for the construction hy the plaintiff of a gold crushing machine, and that the defendant agreed with the plaintiff to pay to the plaintiff therefor the sum of $2500. And also that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff for the making hy the plaintiff for the defendant of a fly-wheel, to he attached to said machine, for the sum of $ 125. The defendant, hy his answer, denied these allegations. From the testimony it. appears that in the spring of 1855, one Samuel Gardiner, jun., who claimed to be an…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Emott, J.
When this ■ case was before us on a previous occasion, we held that if the plaintiff abandoned and put an end to his original agreement made with Gardiner or De Wolf, Starr & Co. to construct the machinery for the price of which this suit was brought, and was then employed by the .defendant to proceed and finish—'the promise of the defendant made under such circumstances was not within the statute of frauds. At the second trial the jury were instructed in conformity with the rule thus indicated. The only material exceptions in the case were taken to these *104instructions,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Meldrum v. KenefickSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902
- Snell v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Lachman v. IrishNew York Supreme Court · 1893