Case Name: Orazio Valentine et al., Resp'ts, v. Richard B. Constantine et al., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-07-26
Citations: 68 N.Y. St. Rep. 883
Docket Number: 
Parties: Orazio Valentine et al., Resp’ts, v. Richard B. Constantine et al., App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 68
Pages: 883–883

Head Matter:
Orazio Valentine et al., Resp’ts, v. Richard B. Constantine et al., App’lts.
Sup. Ct. 2 D.
July 26, 1895.
Moore, Wallace & Dudley, for app’lts; Richard B. Constantine, A. C. Astarita, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
— We are of opinion that the referee's conclusions are sustained by the testimony. Not only was there considerable evidence that Constantine had personal notice of the work done by the plaintiffs, but it seems pretty well established that the tenant had authority to make repairs, He made them for some years, and, until the present instance, his authority was never questioned. There are no exceptions that require notice, and judgment is affirmed, with costs. All concur.