The herald., 1897-04-18
Judge York Decides an
Assessment Case
IN OLD SUBSCRIPTION
A BARBER WHO DEvoTEs HIS
TIME TO SAVING SOULS
Raw. Johnson's Third Suit Falls Fiat
New Suits Filed Yesterday.
Court Notes

,rrag. yorl, Yesterday rendered de-
cision sustaining the findings mace In
Justice court in the appeal case Oh T. ~
Durrell against w. r. Gosewiscn' Inc
action was to recover a judgment LOT
services performed by the plaintln I'D
grading and curbing Forester aVehue'
II appears that in the latter part OF 1859
the plaintiff circulated subscription
contract among the property OWNERS oil
Worcester avenue according to the terms
of which the signers agreed to pay Dur-
rell IS cents per lineal foot or all the
property that they owned in consioera-
ton of hie grading the avenue and curp-
ing it in accordance with the ordnance
nassed by the board of supervisors. The
plaintiff secured the signatures OF nearly
all the owners of property on FORESTER
avenue. between Hoover and vermont
avenues. The defendant signed the con-
tract. putting the number of feet 'front.'
age owned by him at 100.
After all the names had been attacheu
to the subscription contract, the plaih
tiff was delayed in the commencement
of his work by reason of a delay IN es-
tablishing the grade Of the street. he
began work about April, 1896 AFTER
some of the work had been done Durreil
called at Gosewisch's house and lett
word that the work had been COM
menced. He was then informed that
Gosewisch had sold his property on For
rester avenue. He had never al any
time informed Durrell that he wished
to withdraw from the subscription con-
tract, but seems to have assumed that
his selling his property released MIN
from any further obligation.
After the work had been completed
Durrell made collections from some Oh
the parties who had purchased land
from Gosewisch The owner of fifty
feet frontage owned by him at the time
of the signing of the subscription con-
tract objected to paying, and it is for the
amount so unpaid that this action was
brought.
The plaintiff made claim against the
party owning the fifty feet and filed
notice of lien against the lot represent
ing the fifty feet frontage for the pro-
portionate cost for that frontage for
doing the work under the subscription
contract. There was no evidence what
ever of any contract between the plain
tiff and the subsequent owner of the
property with reference to doing the
work The subsequent owner was there
fore not liable, for the work apportioned
against this fifty feet rested upon the
original subscription contract.
The contention of the defendant was,
first. that there was no consideration for
the contract and no acceptance by the
plaintiff; second, that there was an un-
reasonable delay in the commencement
of the work, and, third, that his sale of
his property and notice to the plaintiff
of the sale relieved him from any obli-
cation under the contract.
Referring to the first point, that of no
consideration, Judge York says in his
opinion:
"I find against the defendant In regard
to this point. The defendant knew that
Durrell was securing the signatures of
the property owners on Forester ave-
nue., and that the subscription was not
complete at the time he signed it. He
must have known that the securing OF
additional subscriptions would require
time and effort. This of itself was a
consideration. In order to render a sub
scription binding, 1t is not necessary that
it be formally accepted in express terms
An acceptance may be implied either
from a performance of the conditions
stipulated in the subscription paper or
from some unequivocal act done on the
faith of the subscription, euch as the
commencement of the performance OF
the conditions or the assuming of La
bility under the contract. There was,
therefore, an adequate consideration for
the contract.
II have found from the facts that there
was not an unreasonable delay in the
commencement OF the work. The de-
fendant's third contention finds no sup
port in law or logic. The plaintiffs work
was done in pursuance of the written
contract of the defendant and his asso-
ciates. He did his work under the con-
tract in accordance with its terms, and
the defendant became liable under the
contract for the payment therefor"