Case ID: ny-st-rep_6/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George M. Mittnacht, App’lt, v. Joseph Wolf, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 14, 1886.)
    
    Contract—Condition precedent—Verdict directed.
    Plaintiff presented to defendant and others a proposition in writing to furnish materials and. erect iron balconies to connect their houses according to the requirements of the Are and building department. The offer was accepted and the balconies constructed. In an action to recover the contract irrice the defendants pleaded that the contract had not been performed. It was proved that the balconies were condemned by the department. A verdict for the defendant was directed by the tr al judge. Held, that the plaintiff could not recover under his contract with the defendant until he had proved the erection of the balconies in accordance with the requirements of the building dep rtment, and that failing to do this he was nut entitled to a verdict even if rendered for him.
    Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict rendered in favor of defendant by direction of the court and from an order denying a new trial on the judge’s minutes.
    
      Christopher Fine, for app’lt; Kurzman & Yeaman, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

The plaintiff tendered to the defendant and others a proposition in writing to furnish materials and erect iron balconies to connect their houses according to the requirements of the fire and_building department, with pattern to suit in fancy iron casting, and fancy iron bracket complete with two good coats of paint.

The offer was accepted and the balconies were constructed and this action is brought for the recovery of the contract price. The defense was a failure to perform the contract, and the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant.

These balconies were intended for fire escapes, and as they were subject to the examination of the inspector of buildings it become important to secure their construction in accordance with the requirements of the building department, and the plaintiff undertook to meet and satisfy the rules and specifications of that branch of the city government relating to that subject.

At the close of the testimony it appeared plainly that the plaintiff had failed in the performance of his contract. The work was condemned by the department, and the defendant was obliged to take it down to avoid a public prosecution.

There could be no recovery by the plaintiff under lfis contract with the defendant until he had proved the performance of the condition precedent to erect the balconies in accordance with the requirements of the building department, and as he failed to make such proof, he was not entitled to a verdict even if the jury had made one for him. Under such circumstances it was proper to direct a verdict for the defendant.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.