Legal Opinion

Feeney v. Bardsley

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 17, 1901PublishedCited by 23 opinions

On error.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Van Syckel, J.

This-suit was brought by Feeney, the defendant in error, to recover the balance alleged to be' due to him upon a building contract.

The plaintiff in error relies for reversal upon alleged errors in the charge of the trial court. . -■

The trial judge charged that if the contractor did not substantially comply with the contract he could not recover. *240He told the jury that if a builder contracts to erect a two-story and a half house, and he erects only a one-story and a half house, he cannot recover, although he has added value to the owner’s…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mackinson v. ConlonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  2. Nordin Construction Company v. City of NomeAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Jardine Estates, Inc. v. Donna Brook Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  4. Power-Matics, Inc. v. LigottiNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1963
  5. R. KREVOLIN & CO., INC. v. BrownNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API