Case Name: SCOTT et al. v. BROWN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-04-21
Citations: 57 N.Y.S. 763
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCOTT et al. v. BROWN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 57
Pages: 763–765

Head Matter:
(27 Misc. Rep. 203.)
SCOTT et al. v. BROWN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
April 21, 1899.)
Customs and Usages—Knowledge—Decorators.
To charge defendant with board of decorators on the ground of a custom in that particular trade entitling the master decorator to charge for the board of the men employed, it must be shown that defendant had knowledge of the existence of the custom.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Eléventh district. .
Action by Albert E. Scott and another, as co-partners, against William L. Brown. From a judgment in favor of. plaintiffs,, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
William Steele Grey,- for appellant.
A. G. N. Vermilya,- for respondents.

Opinion:
MacLEAN, J.
The plaintiffs' assignor, who was the plaintiff first above named, was employed' by thé defendant to' do certain painting and decorating on his premises near Suffern, and he in' turn employed workmen drawn partly-from that neighborhood and.partly from, the city of New York. Some of the latter were paid by the piece and some by the day. In addition to the per diem charge and the charge by the piece, the assignor charged for the transportation and for the board of the men from the city. The bills, including one containing a charge for transportation, presented by the assignor. and by the plaintiffs, were paid by the defendant, until he noticed a charge "for' board. That he refused to pay. The action was brought as for balance due for moneys expended for paying board of painters: ,and decorators employed on the premises of the defendant, at his request, and .upon his promise to. pay for the same. It was not contended that the defendant agreed to pay the board of the men hired by the plaintiffs, but plaintiffs' contended that they were entitled-to the balance because of an alleged usage or custom in that particular trade entitling the master-decorator to charge, for the-board of. the men employed. There is nothing in the evidence in .reference to the alleged usage, or that the defendant ever had any knowledge or. notice of such usage. Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464. The judgment, should be reversed. .
Judgment reversed, and a hew trial ordered, with costs tothe appel-. lant to abide the event. AH concur.