From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States Wood Preserving v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 16, 1912
97 N.E. 1117 (N.Y. 1912)

Opinion

Argued October 30, 1911

Decided January 16, 1912

Archibald R. Watson Corporation Counsel ( Terence Farley of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Cunneen and William W. Niles for respondent.


Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on the ground that there was evidence from which the jury might have found that the work sued for was included within the original contract and that it was fraudulent and collusive for the defendant's officials to agree to pay the plaintiff therefor, and, therefore, it was error to refuse to submit the question to the jury; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT and COLLIN, JJ. Dissenting: GRAY, VANN and HISCOCK, JJ.


Summaries of

United States Wood Preserving v. the City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 16, 1912
97 N.E. 1117 (N.Y. 1912)
Case details for

United States Wood Preserving v. the City of New York

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, Respondent, v . THE CITY OF NEW…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 16, 1912

Citations

97 N.E. 1117 (N.Y. 1912)
97 N.E. 1117

Citing Cases

United States Wood Preserving v. the City of New York

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 204 N.Y. 581.)…