Case Name: Cunningham v. Jones
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1859
Citations: 20 N.Y. 486
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cunningham v. Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 486–491

Head Matter:
Cunningham v. Jones.
Full performance is a condition precedent to the right to any payment upon a contract to erect a house without any agreement in respect to the sum. to be paid or the times of payment, except that the labor was to be ‘‘by day’s work.”
Appeal from the Common Pleas of the city and county of New York. Action to recover the amount of a mechanic’s lien for materials furnished under a building contract between the defendant as owner, and one George W. Burwick, for erecting a certain addition to a brewery belonging to the defendant. No question arose on the preliminary proceedings or upon the pleadings, and it was conceded that if Burwick had a right of action against the defendant for the work done and materials found to the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action.
The trial was before a referee, who found these facts: In the' year 1853, the defendant being the owner of the premises mentioned in the complaint, contracted with Burwick to erect thereon a certain addition to his brewery, then upon his premises. The contract was by parol, without any stipulation or agreement in respect to the sum to be paid to Burwick, or the times of payment, excepting that the labor was performed by day’s work. Burwick entered upon the work purchasing the materials for the building in his own name, and directing them to be delivered upon the premises. During the progress of the work, and in the months of September and October, 1853, the plaintiff, in pursuance of an agreement with Burwick, and in conformity with the contract between Burwick and the defendant, furnished certain lumber, timber and materials which were delivered upon the premises and used in the building. Afterwards and before the building was inclosed, and in the latter part of October, 1853, Burwick, without the fault of the defendant, absconded and discontinued work on the building, but leaving his workmen still employed upon it, and it was then taken in hand and completed by the defendant. On the 3d of November, 1853, the lien in this case was regularly docketed, whereby the plaintiff claimed the sum of $706.83 as the value of the materials furnished by him. Before the docketing of the lien, Burwiclc had performed work and labor upon and furnished materials for the building to the value of more than $1,200, and the defendant had paid, on account thereof, $400, and no more. The actual value of the materials, &c., so furnished by the plaintiff was $677.99, no part of which had been paid.
As conclusions of law, the referee decided that the contract was an entire one, and not divisible as to the time of payment, and that the law required the building to be completed before the contractor could call for any payment: that the contractor could not sue and recover for the part of the services performed and materials found up to the túne he absconded, and that the plaintiff’s lien being limited to such amount only as the defendant was liable to pay the contractor at the time the same was docketed, or at any time subsequently, he was not entitled to recover. Judgment upon this report was entered for the defendant, and having been affirmed at general term, the plaintiff appealed to this court.
John H. Reynolds, for the appellant.
Joshua Goit, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
This case involves one of the same questions which have been passed upon by this court in Smith v. Brady (17 N. Y., 173), and other cases there cited, and particularly McMillan v. Vanderlip, 12 J. R., 165; Reab v. Moor, 19 id., 337, (affirmed by the Court of Errors), and a similar judgment must follow unless the facts so far differ as to authorize a different result.
The refeere has found as a fact that there was a contract to erect the addition to the brewery. It was by parol, and with out any stipulation in respect to the sum to be paid or the time of payment, except that the labor was by day's work. Under this contract Burwick, the contractor, entered upon the work, in September and October, 1851, and continued in it until in the latter part of October, 1858, he abandoned it and absconded, leaving it in an unfinished state, when the defendant took it in hand and completed it on his own account.
This finding would seem to dispose of the whole case in favor of the defendant, according to the decisions just referred to. The contract was an entire one, and indiyisible, and Bur-wick was not entitled to recover without a full performance on his part. It matters not that no price was fixed upon as a compensation. The defendant, on completion of the work, would be liable to pay what the work and materials were reasonably worth; having the right to insist, however, that the contract should be first performed by Burwick. Instead of performance, he willfully abandoned the work in an unfinished state, leaving it upon the hands of the defendant to complete, subjecting him to the damages necessarily arising from such a course. The judgment must be affirmed.
Johnson, Ch. J., Comstock, Denio, Allen, Gray, Grover and Strong, Js., concurred.