Majority
Headnote
G., being the owner of a patent right for the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and some tools, on premises leased by him, employed the plaintiffs to instruct a planing machine, for him, to enable him to effectuate his interest in the patent right. He then sold his interest in the lease of the premises, with the tools and machines, and in the patent right, to V. Before the plaintiffs had commenced work upon the planing machine, G., accompanied by V., called on them and informed them that he (G.) had sold out his interest to V., who assented to the statement. The plaintiffs then proceeded with the machine, and completed it, and delivered the same to V. and charged him with the price. EelA that V. could only be made liable upon the ground of an original promise; but that if he expressly or impliedly directed the plaintiffs to complete the machine, and the same was completed and delivered to him, he was bound to pay therefor.By the Court,
If Van Wyck is liable at all, it is on the ground of an original promise. The machine, for the making of which this action is brought, was ordered in the first instance by Green, who was the owner of a Kittle’s machine, and some tools which he had, on premises rented by him in 22d street. This machine was ordered, to enable him to effectuate the interest which he had in the
Although the machine was, in the first instance, ordered by Green, yet if Van Wyck expressly or impliedly directed the plaintiffs to complete it, and if they delivered it to Van Wyck, the latter is liable to pay for the work; and the plaintiffs having chosen to charge Van Wyck, and having delivered it to him, had no claim against Green.
The questions of fact, upon which these propositions depend, were fairly put to the jury; and I see nothing, in this respect, in the judge’s charge, of which the defendant can complain.
The complaint contains a great deal of unnecessary matter; but, however inconsistent with the general allegations some of the statements, which are mere recitals of evidence, may be, yet those general allegations contain enough to sustain a claim for work and labor; and the judge properly refused to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not show an original promise.
As to the taking back of the machine by the plaintiffs, after it was delivered to Van Wyck, the judge expressly charged the jury “ if the plaintiffs intended to take the machine as a substitute for his debt, and to relieve the defendant from all liability, then they could not claim for it in this suit; but if they merely took it for the purpose of making a sale on account of Van Wyck, then it was not a circumstance
[New York General Term,
February 3, 1862.
Ingraham, Leonard, and Clerhe, Justices.]
On the whole, I see no reason why the verdict should be disturbed.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.