Case Name: The Central Gas & Electric Fixture Co., Resp't, v. August Kohn, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11-25
Citations: 49 N.Y. St. Rep. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Central Gas & Electric Fixture Co., Resp’t, v. August Kohn, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 49
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
The Central Gas & Electric Fixture Co., Resp’t, v. August Kohn, App’lt.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
Filed November 25, 1892.)
Guaranty—Consideration.
Defendant, in consideration of one dollar paid and of $110 to be paid by plaintiff to him, guaranteed the payment to it by one C. of a cenain sum for fixtures when hung, and agreed to pay the same on a specified day unless C. paid the same. C. failed to have the building in condition to permit plaintiff to finish the work at the time specified, but subsequently nearly all the fixtures were hung. The $110 were offered to defendant six months after the guaranty was made, but were not left with him. Held, that defendant was not released from liability by these facts, and that a recovery by plaintiff was proper.
(Newburqer, J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict.
Wm. J. Lippman, for app’lt; Birdseye, Cloyd & Bayliss, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Fitzsimons, J.
The plaintiff agreed with one Carey on April 15, 1891, to furnish and hang certain gas fixtures in house at One Hundred and Fourth street and Eighth avenue for the sum of $1,350, to be completed May 1, 1891.
On April 16, 1891, the following agreement was made by defendant with plaintiff.
" In consideration of the sum of one dollar to me in hand paid by the within named Central Gas & Electric Fixture Company, the receipt of which is admitted, and of the sum of $110 to be paid to me,- and of other good and sufficient considerations, me hereunto moving, I hereby guarantee the payment of the within named sum of $1,350 by the said Carey to the said company for said fixtures when hung as therein stated, and promise and agree to pay the same to the said company on the 15th day of May, 1891, unless the said Carey shall, on or before said date, pay the same to the said company in full."
The failure of Carey to have the buildings mentioned in a condition so as to permit plaintiff to hang the fixtures on or before May 1st, and the fact that such fixtures were only partially put up at that, and that subsequently nearly, all the remainder were placed in position, does not free defendant from his obligation to pay therefor; that was the fault of Carey, not the fault of plaintiff
Plaintiff is entitled to a recovery against defendant, even though the contract made with Carey was only substantially performed.
The plaintiff was not required to actually pay the $110 mentioned in the guarantee to defendant before he received the $1,350 provided for in such guarantee.
The performance of these several acts were independent of each other, and it was only necessary for plaintiff to tender said $110 at most; the defendant was then required to perform his part of the contract; his failure to do so entitled plaintiff to institute against him this cause of action..
We find no error. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs in result.