Morowski v. Rohrig
New York Court of Common Pleas
On reargument. A judgment of the general term of the city court affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff (21 ST. Y. Supp. 1136) having been reversed on appeal, (22 2>í; Y. Supp. 1130,) a reargument was granted on plaintiffs’ motion, (22 ¡N. Y. Supp. 1133.)
1Opinion of the CourtBookstaver, J.
This action was brought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for an alleged balance due on contract, and also for extra work. The complaint allegéd a written contract. There was no allegation of any other contract, nor any pretense that the written one did not contain the whole contract between the parties, nor did the plaintiffs at any time move to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof, or otherwise. ¡Not only did the complaint allege the written contract, but it also claimed full performance of it. On the trial the plaintiffs were allowed to give evidence of their excuse of nonperformance…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Thomas v. . ScuttNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Halpin v. . Phenix Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- De Witt v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Wilson v. . DeenNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Hopper v. . SageNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hubbard v. ChapmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Hubbard v. ChapmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Maeder v. WexlerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1904
- Piretti v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1910
- Lajos v. Eden Musee American Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.