Case Name: ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & INSPECTING CO. v. SCHEELENBERG
Court: New York Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-26
Citations: 98 N.Y.S. 225
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & INSPECTING CO. v. SCHEELENBERG.
Judges: Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and O’GORMAN and NEWBUR-GER, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 98
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
(50 Misc. Rep. 167)
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT & INSPECTING CO. v. SCHEELENBERG.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 26, 1906.)
Contracts — Performance of Conditions — Sufficiency.
Under an agreement providing that plaintiff should inspect the electric installation in defendant’s place of business, defendant to pay plaintiff’s inspector $50 on presenting certificate of inspection; that without additional charges plaintiffs were to check defendant’s bills for one year and bills for the past year, and an accompanying letter to defendant from plaintiff, stating that the latter “would guaranty to furnish defendant with advice which would save defendant 10 per- cent, of the lighting their premises”; if not, the amount of subscription is to be refunded — plaintiff need only prove the inspection and presentation of the certificate to entitle him to demand payment of the contract price.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Action by the Electrical Equipment & Inspecting Company against Nathan Scheelenberg. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and O’GORMAN and NEWBUR-GER, JJ.
Goldsmith & Rosenthal, for appellant.
Cahn & Razansky, for respondent.

Opinion:
NEWBURGER, J.
The agreement sought to be enforced here "provided that the plaintiff should make an inspection of the electric installation in defendant's place of business, and defendant agrees to pay plaintiff's inspector $50 on presenting certificate of inspection." The agreement further provided that without any additional charges plaintiffs were to check defendant's bills for one year and bills for past year. Accompanying this agreement was a letter from the plaintiff to the defendant, in which it was stated that- the plaintiff "would guaranty to furnish defendant with advice which would save defendant 10 per cent, of the lighting their premises"; if not, the amount of subscription is to be refunded. On the trial it was shown .by plaintiff that the inspection was made and the certificate required by the contract furnished. The certificate was produced by defendant, and marked as an exhibit. No proof was offered by defendant. The trial justice rendered judgment for the defendant.
It has been held in this court in construing similar contracts that the plaintiff is only required to prove the inspection of the electrical installation and the presentation of the certificate to entitle him to demand payment of the contract price. See Electrical Equipment Co. v. Feuerlicht (Sup.) 90 N. Y. Supp. 467; Electrical Equipment Co. v. Archibald (Sup.) 92 N. Y. Supp. 1121.
Judgment must therefore be reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
O'GORMAN, J., concurs.