Case ID: ad_151/html/0943-07.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, P. J. (dissenting in part):", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Third Department,
    June, 1912.
    Theodore D. Allen and George S. Miller, Respondents, v. The City of Oneida, Appellant.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Madison on the 1st day of March, 1911, and also from an' order entered on the 27th day of December, 1911.
   Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Smith, P. J., dissenting in part in memorandum;. Lyon, J., not sitting.

Smith, P. J. (dissenting in part):

The contract signed is unambiguous. Plaintiff has recovered for extra work in doing work which was within the terms of the contract, on the ground that before the signing of the contract he was assured by the city authorities that a strict performance thereof would not be required. This holding. seems to be unjustified either upon principle or authority. Whatever right the plaintiff might have for reformation of the contract, until the contract is reformed he has no claim for additional compensation for work specifically required thereby. The judgment, therefore, so far as it awards additional compensation for work upon the reservón site in taking the roots out from the land is in my judgment unauthorized and should be reversed.