Hyperlawhypertext legal database Reilly v. Sulzbach 173 A.D. 896

← Cases

Reilly v. Sulzbach

173 A.D. 896 Court N.Y. App. Div. English

Contents

Majority

p. 896
Elmore T. Reilly, Doing Business in the City of New York, etc., Appellant, v. Jacob Sulzbach, Respondent.

Headnote

Contract—due performance — substantial performance — amount of allowance — burden of proof
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the County Court of Queens county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 9th day of December, 1914, and from an intermediate order entered November 7, 1914.

In the course of this protracted trial we think plaintiff’s counsel fell into error through overconfidence, so that eventually recovery was staked upon the results of the measurement of the inside of the boilers. Upon an official measurement in the presence of court, counsel and plaintiff in person, the inside diameter of both boilers averaged two inches less than the specified sixty-six inches, with a smaller reduction in the lengths. There was evidence likewise of imperfections in the erection of the smokestack subsequently ordered. In case of inadvertent omissions, variation or defective workmanship, not vital to performance, plaintiff has the burden of proving the amount of any allowance to be made therefor. (Spence v. Ham, 163 N. Y. 320 , 227.) Fór a more correct determination of the rights of the parties we think there should be a new trial. It is not too late to amend the complaint in respect of the allegation of due performance of all the contract conditions. The judgment of the County Court of Queens county in favor of defendant is accordingly

p. 897
reversed and a new trial ordered, without costs of this appeal, but with leave to apply to the Special Term, if plaintiff be so advised, to amend his complaint upon proper terms. The intermediate order should be affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgment of the County Court of Queens county in favor of defendant reversed and a new trial ordered, without costs of this appeal, but with leave to apply to the Special Term, if plaintiff be so advised, to amend the complaint upon proper terms. Intermediate order affirmed, without costs.

Cases cited