Case ID: ny_224/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank George et al., Appellants, v. City of Schenectady, Respondent.
    
      George v. City of Schenectady, 171 App. Div. 966, affirmed.
    (Argued October 17, 1918;
    decided November 1, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment entered December 14, 1Ó15, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for alleged extra work in the performance of a contract for the laying of certain sewers. The plaintiffs claimed that they found a certain conglomerate or hard-pan in performing the work under the contract, that the same was called to the attention of the officers of the defendant in charge of the work, that none of this substance or hardpan was mentioned as a part of the excavation under the specifications, instructions to bidders or contract, and that it was stipulated that said excavation of said conglomerate or hardpan should be paid for additional to that provided in the contract for earth excavation. The defense was that the hardpan was properly classified and paid for as earth under the contract.
    
      Nathaniel W. Norton for appellants.
    
      John D. Miller for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.