Case Name: James Crow, et al. plaintiffs and respondents, vs. Garret Becker, et al. defendants and appellants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1867-05-06
Citations: 5 Rob. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Crow, et al. plaintiffs and respondents, vs. Garret Becker, et al. defendants and appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 28
Pages: 262–279

Head Matter:
James Crow, et al. plaintiffs and respondents, vs. Garret Becker, et al. defendants and appellants.
Where the issues tried in an action to recover the residue of a fixed sum, ($1500,) for which the plaintiffs agreed to do certain work, were, whether (1,) a sum paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs exceeded 'the value of the work actually done; (2,) the defendants sustained damage by the mode in which such work was done; (3,) the work was completed within the time agreed on; (4,) the defendants sustained damage by the abandonment of such work by the plaintiffs before its completion, an inquiry by the court of a wit-mess whether the price fixed ($1500) would not be a contract for “ a rough job,” followed by a remark by it to the jury that $1500 for a building of “ those dimensions was little enough,” was likely to mislead the jury into a belief that the character of the work to be done depended upon the price, and was good ground for a new trial, where exceptions were taken by the plaintiffs to such inquiry and remark. Jokes, J. dissented.
(Before Robertson, Oh. J. and Barbour and Jokes, JJ.)
Heard June 13, 1867;
decided May 6, 1867.
This action is brought to recover a balance alleged to be due for mason-work, done under a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
The defense set up in the answer:
1st. Payment of a sum more than sufficient to cover the value of the work actually done.
■ 2d. Unworkmanlike and unskillful performance, to the defendants’ damage of $400.
3d. Non-completion within the time agreed on.
4th. Abandonment of the work by the plaintiffs, and damages received thereby.
On the trial the defendant Becker was called as a witness, and, among other things, asked: .“ In consequence of Mr. Crow not having the work completed by the 15th October, how much did you lose on your contract with Mr. Jones?” Which question was objected to, and ruled out. He was then asked by the court: “ $1500 would be a contract for a rough job ?” Which question was objected to, but allowed, and exception taken. He answered, “Yes, sir.” The court then remarked : “ $1500 for a building of this dimension is little enough.” To which remark the defendants’ counsel excepted. He was then asked by his counsel: “ In consequence of the delay and failure of Mr. Crow to complete the work at the time agreed on, what amount of damage did you sustain ?” Which question was objected to and excluded. The witness was then, after cross-examination, asked on his re-direct, (nothing in the cross-examination calling for the question,) “Were you acquainted with the value of rentals in that vicinity during May, 1860 ?” which was objected to. The defendants’ counsel then offered to show the loss of rents on the building from October 15 to December 6, which was excluded.
Jonathan See, a witness on behalf of the defendants, after having testified that Becker gave him a piece of paper, which he gave to Crow, was asked: “ State the contents of that paper.” Which was objected to, on the ground that no notice had been given for its production. The objection was sustained, and exception taken.
The parties having rested, the judge charged the jury: “ This is an action on a contract for building a house. It would seem as if the price named in the contract ($1500) would not call for a very superior class of work. But the whole case resolves itself to a question of credibility between the witnesses, of which you (the jury)' are the exclusive judges. Mr. Becker, the defendant, states that Mr. Crow abandoned the work at a certain stage, and he had to complete it. The • plaintiff testified that he. completed the work agreed on in the contract, with the assistance of men whom he employed and paid. The jury will remember the testimony of these parties, and other witnesses examined, and, as they credit either side, they will find for the plaintiffs or defendants.”
The counsel for the defendants excepted to that part-of the charge which speaks of the price named in the contract not calling for a very superior class of work.
The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs for $438.75. The defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment having been entered according to the verdict, the defendants appealed to the general term from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.
On the argument of the appeal, the defendants’ counsel urged that the judge erred in his rulings above mentioned; also in the expression of the opinion above referred to; and in not charging the jury on the law applicable to the facts proved, and also urged that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.
' A. S. Beavy, for the appellants.
B. JV. Waite, for the respondents.

Opinion:
By the Court, Robertson, Ch. J.
Four defenses were made by the answer in this case, and of course there were as many issues to be tried by the jury. 1. Whether a sum was paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs, exceeding the work actually done by them. 2. Whether the defendants sustained damage by the unworkmanlike and unskillful performance of such work. 3. Whether,, such, work was not completed within the time agreed on; "and 4. Whether the defendants sustained damage by the abandonment of such work by the plaintiffs.
All of such issues are presumed to have been passed upon "by the jury, unless expressly withdrawn from their consideration, and all such evidence which might influence them in deciding any of such issues improperly, being illegal, should be excluded, if objected to.
In this case, a question was put to a witness (the defendant Becker,) whether the price to be paid was " that on a contract for a rough job ?" To which the defendants' counsel objected, and excepted to its admission. This question evidently might have had its effect on the jury, for even the learned justice, before whom the action was tried, remarked to them, " that the price named in the contract did not call for a very superior class of work;" and the jury might have been induced to think from the admission of the evidence, that they were authorized to determine the class of work from the price paid, and were to be governed by that. It is true, the judge in charging the jury, in other respects confined his remarks to the question of abandonment. But he did not exclude from their consideration the other defenses in the action, in determining on which, .the jury might have been governed by the improper evidence already admitted, as the judge evidently was.
I do not deem it necessary in this case, to discuss the question whether, on a motion for a new trial on a case, for misdirection of the judge, it is essential that an exception should have been taken to his charge on the trial, on the point objected to on the hearing. Although Archer v. Hubbell, (4 Wend. 514,) seems to be decisive of it in the Supreme Court, sustained as it is by People v. Holmes, (5 Wend. 193,) and Hastings v. McKinley, (3 Code Rep. 10,) this court seems in Cook v. Hill, (3 Sandf. 341,) and Stoddard v. Long Island Railroad Company, (5 id. 180,) to have held differently but it seems also to have been governed by the consideration that upon the whole case, the party succeeding was entitled to recover.
But, for the error in admitting the testimony in answer to the question, whose admission was objected to, the defendants are entitled to a new trial, with costs to abide the event.