From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saw Mill Supply, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 30, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 886 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

January 30, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, JOSEPH RAIMO, J.

Charles J. Costabell for appellants.

Walter E. Godfrey for respondent.


The services of the plaintiff carrier to the subcontractor were not labor or material within the meaning of the bond furnished by the defendants to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. ( Troy Public Works Co. v. City of Yonkers, 207 N.Y. 81; Gates Co. v. Stevens Constr. Co., 169 App. Div. 221.)

Further, the prime contract upon which plaintiff relies was made in Massachusetts and calls for performance in that State; therefore, the law of Massachusetts applies. The law of Massachusetts "perhaps most nearly approaches the English rigor" in denying a third-party beneficiary the right to sue upon a contract to which it is a stranger. (2 Williston on Contracts [rev. ed.], § 367, p. 1069; New England Structural Co. v. James Russell Boiler Works Co., 231 Mass. 274.)

Accordingly judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs and complaint dismissed, with costs.

HECHT, J.P., AURELIO and TILZER, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Saw Mill Supply, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 30, 1958
11 Misc. 2d 886 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Saw Mill Supply, Inc. v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SAW MILL SUPPLY, INC., Respondent, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY CO., et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 30, 1958

Citations

11 Misc. 2d 886 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
172 N.Y.S.2d 600