Johnson v. . De Peyster
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action upon a building contract. The principal question below was as to whether plaintiff, the contractor, had substantially performed his contract. The referee found this issue in his favor upon conflicting evidence. He also found that defendant sustained damage from insufficient and defective work to the amount of $150, which he allowed as recoupment.
Read the full summary
This was an action upon a building contract. The principal question below was as to whether plaintiff, the contractor, had substantially performed his contract. The referee found this issue in his favor upon conflicting evidence. He also found that defendant sustained damage from insufficient and defective work to the amount of $150, which he allowed as recoupment. Held, that the question whether the defects were so trivial and insignificant as to justify the finding that the work was substantially performed was a question of fact, and that the amount allowed was not such as to show that the…
1Opinion of the Court
'Grover, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur, except Peokham, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by15 opinions
- Woodward v. . FullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Phillip v. . GallantNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Aldrich v. WilmarthSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Boteler v. RoyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Anderson v. MeislahnNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1883
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.