The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-04-24
KAHIHE C0UaT--pAaT Y.
Important Action ON n Contrnct-Ruiing of
the Court.
Before Judge Cardozo.


Before Judge Cardozo
seligndn Tyier e. al The Metropolitan Paper
CotdrConpanu-Th action was brought by the firm
Of Trier won OF this city, whose business 1t Is to
put what Is known as the '1inen thread nnish-
paper, preparatory 10 Its being cut into COL
eglnst the DEFENDANT corporation, for SER
sathnshing a quantity OF paper for them in
thoughBy the evidence It appeared that the
I;as had secret in the preparation OF the col
sring matter or enamel. This was applied to the
paper by means OF brushes cloths on the rollers
through which the paper passed as it was unroled;
It then ran between other rollers, ono OF which had
linen OF the thread desired wrapped around IL and
winch impressed itself upon the coloring matter, the
paper afterwards going through polishing process:
No question was made as 10 the number OF
rolls of paper thus finished, but the defendants
commended that large amount OF the paper was
e as 10 he nnt or he 'g ppoes " collar max
ing and had to be thrown in the waste bag. In an.
when the paper was received by them number OF
the rolls had the wrappers OF the ends and being
paper became turned up, which, upon being passed
tnrough the machine, caused the wrnkliug and tear
ing Of 81 s a tina, e attention %
said he knew It, but that paInttns must do the best
they could, and That the paper made later satisfied
they could.
defendants counsel, upon the closing Of PLANTING
Q dismissal on the ground that there Is prior ac-
tlon pending in the Supreme Court for the same
cause OF action
DECISION OF THE COURT
Judge Curtis rendered the following decision:-
This action IN brought to recover $4l3 OF, alleged
TO be due by the defendants, q corporation, to the
plaintiffs, for work. labor and services performed.
IL IL undoubtedly true, commended by the learned
counsel for the defendant for whose legal opinion
have very high respect, that the plaintiffs In order
70 recover IN this action must establish afirma-
lively that they have performed their contract in
tts entirety. That they were employed to do the
linen finishing upon this class OF work there can be
controversy; that they didldo the linen finishing
upon this class Of work there is equal certainty:
Now, the question is, did they did they not do IL
In proper manner and not as the defendants al
iege, In negligent and improper manner,
80 that the work. when completed, instead OF
being an advantage was injury TO the defendant
That question, OF course becomes one emincntly OF
fact, which, perhaps, had better have been presented
70 the consideration OF Jury; but IL having been
presented for the consideration OF the Court sitting
as Jury, think IL is incumbent upon che Court to
state why IL has come 70 the conclusion TO render
judgment upon the evidence In favor
OF the plaintiffs; not that the one side 10 not as
much entitled belief the other because the wit
nesses on both SIDES respectable parties and cti-
sens, and all In my judgment have been very con.
: scicntous IN the manner Of telling their different
stories Now the defendants sllege that the plaInts
should not recover because they did not perform this
contract they mpiedy sgfsed TO do; thatps, they