Case Name: Raymond v. Hanford
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-02
Citations: 6 Thomp. & Cook 312
Docket Number: 
Parties: Raymond v. Hanford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Thompson & Cook's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 312–314

Head Matter:
Raymond v. Hanford.
Action —in assumpsit on special contract — on contract of ma/rried woman not equitable. Damages—measw'eof. Jurisdiction—of county court.
An executed contract may'be sued upon an implied assumpsit, and the contract price will be the measure of recovery.
An action for work and labor performed upon a contract with a married woman for the benefit of her seperate estate, held, not an equitable one, and that the county court had jurisdiction of it.
APPEAL by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the Westchester county court, entered upon the report of a referee.
The action was brought by James H. Raymond against Caroline H. Hanford, to recover for work, labor and services. The complaint alleged that defendant is a married woman and the owner of certain real estate; that plaintiff, at defendant’s request, performed work upon and for the benefit of said estate of the reasonable value of $710, which defendant promised and agreed to pay, and that defendant had paid $300 thereon. The answer admitted that defendant was a married woman and owned the real estate mentioned, and denied that she employed plaintiff.
Upon the .trial, plaintiff proved that he had been employed to work under two special contracts, one to work for twelve months at $55 per month, commencing April 1, 1872, which was made about the-middle of March, 1872, and another to work at $2 per day until he got a place elsewhere, commencing at the termination of the first contract, in April, 1873, and that he performed both contracts. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, upon the grounds (1) that the complaint being upon a quantum meruit proof of á special contract would not sustain it; (2) that the first made contract was void under the statute of frauds; and (3) that the action being one in which equitable relief is sought by the plaintiff, the county court had no jurisdiction. The motion was denied.
T. G. Swartwout, for appellant.
L. T. Yale, for respondent.
Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Donohue, JJ.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
I can discover no error in this case. The plaintiff sued defendant upon a quantum meruit for work and labor done for her upon her premises at Tarrytown, she being a married woman. Upon the trial, it appeared that plaintiff worked by the year from the 1st of April, 1872, to the 1st of April, 1873, and after that for about a month, by the day. An executed contract may be sued upon an implied assumpsit, and the contract price will be the measure of recovery. , Farron v. Sherwood, 17 N. Y. 227; Fells v. Vestavali, 2 Keyes, 152.
The action is not an equitable action, and the county court had jurisdiction of it. Maxon v. Scott, 55 N. Y. 247.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed.