Quinlan v. . Russell
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal by defendant Russell from a judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court, in the city of Hew York, entered upon an order made April 5, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in 'favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. (Reported below, 15 J. & S. 212.) The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant Russell from a judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court, in the city of Hew York, entered upon an order made April 5, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in 'favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. (Reported below, 15 J. & S. 212.) The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiff, as assignor of the contractor, Smith, stands in the same relation to and under the contract as Smith, before the assignment was made. (Schaefer v. Reilly, 50 N. Y. 61; Green v. Warwick, 61 id. 221; Mechanics…
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
The rights of the appellant Bussell are concluded by the findings of the Special Term. The plaintiff, as assignee of Terence Smith, the original contractor, sued the city of New York for a balance of $700, alleged to be due 'and unpaid upon a contract for paving and flagging a portion of Ninth avenue. Bussell was made a party defendant because, under a claim that he had furnished material for work done under that contract, he had filed with the commissioner of public works a notice of the non-payment of his demand, whereby he claimed to have obtained a lien upon the balance in the hands of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- C. T. Willard Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1913