Case ID: ny-sup-ct_11/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LUTHER E. MANSFIELD, Respondent, v. CHARLES H. KERNER AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS.
    
      Contract—specificaMons annexed to — when compliance with must he proved —Answer — allegations of—when insufficient as evidence ftrr plaintiff.
    
    This action was brought to recover for work performed in erecting an elevator, “ as per specifications annexed to the written contract.” The answer alleged that the elevator was to be constructed “ in accordance with certain drawings and specifications,” and then set forth certain of the requirements thereof. Upon the trial the plaintiff did not prove the contract and specifications, but read a portion of the answer, referring, in general terms, to the contract, and declared that this was the agreement which he accepted, and he was allowed to recover thereon. Held, that this was error; that he should have been compelled to prove, the contract and specifications, and compliance therewith.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered, upon the verdict of a jury.
    
      George H. Forster, for the appellants.
    
      Frank Reynolds, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Tappen, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.