Case Name: RAYMOND CONCRETE PILE CO. v. JOHN THATCHER & SON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-03-12
Citations: 152 N.Y.S. 98
Docket Number: 
Parties: RAYMOND CONCRETE PILE CO. v. JOHN THATCHER & SON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 152
Pages: 98–102

Head Matter:
(166 App. Div. 522)
RAYMOND CONCRETE PILE CO. v. JOHN THATCHER & SON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 12, 1915.)
Contracts <@=>280—Action for Breach—Nonperformance by Plaintiff.
Where a contract for concrete piles required the contractor to drive a specified number of piles of a fixed length “until not more than ten blows”
. of a certain power hammer were required to secure one inch penetration, and provided for the driving of additional piles or additional lengths of piles at a fixed rate per foot, and for reductions from the contract price if shorter piles were sufficient, and the contractor drove 32 piles more than the specified number, and 23 of the piles, all of which were more than 20 feet in length, were not driven till they met the required resistance test, the contractor could not recover the contract price for those 23 piles.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1249-1280; Dec. Dig. <@=>280.]
Thomas, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Action by the Raymond Concrete Pile Company against John Thatcher & Son. From a judgment for plaintiff for the amount ad mitted to be due, and an order denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 158 App. Div. 546, 143 N. Y. Supp. 959.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.
Martin Conboy, of New York City, for appellant.
Hugo Hirsh, of Brooklyn (Emanuel Newman and Benjamin Reass, both of Brooklyn, on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff sued for a defined amount of money which it claimed to be due for services rendered under a written contract with the defendant. The defendant denied performance as alleged by the plaintiff, but admitted a certain amount as due for such work as the plaintiff had done under the contract. The complaint was dismissed as to the items disputed by the defendant, and judgment was directed in favor of the plaintiff as to the items not controverted. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals.
There is no dispute as to the facts. The case was here before, and a judgment directed for the defendant was reversed. Thomas, J., 158 App. Div. 546, 143 N. Y. Supp. 959. The defendant had a contract, with specifications, to build a mortuary vault in Greenwood Cemetery. According to the specifications, cement piles were to be driven under all walls and piers in "staggered rows." "The piles shall be of type known as Raymond concrete steel piles, consisting of a steel shell driven into the ground and then filled with concrete. The piles shall be driven to refusal with a No. 2 Vulcan steam hammer, refusal being understood for the purpose of this specification to mean that the piles shall not penetrate more than one inch under the last 16 blows of the hammer." The defendant submitted the plans and specifications to the plaintiff for a proposal, which the latter made in writing. This proposal was accepted by the defendant, and its language as to the driving of the piles is as follows:
"The pile core shall in each case be driven until not more than ten blows of a No. 2 Vulcan steam hammer are required to secure one inch penetration."
The proposal provided for 181 piles, each 20 feet in length. Additional piles, or additional lengths of piles, were provided for at $1.30 a lineal foot. In all, 213 piles were driven; that is, 32 additional piles. As to 23 piles, the defendant disputed performance according to the terms of the contract. A list of these disputed piles was stipulated. As to these piles, the plaintiff had stopped driving, as to each of them, while penetration of one inch was going on with less than 10 blows of the hammer, in some cases at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 blows of the hammer. All of these disputed piles were from 32 to 41 feet in length.
We can find no evidence in the case showing why the plaintiff stopped driving under less than 10 blows of the hammer. It may be that the core by which the driving was done was less in length than the pile, but in the stipulated list there is at least one pile as to which the core was longer than the pile. Concededly, as to 23 piles, the plaintiff ceased driving at a point where the core still penetrated one inch under the last 10 blows of the hammer. Why was this? We do not know, and we find no evidence in the record which attempts to explain it. It certainly was not the presence of boulders, for the core was still penetrating. Geerj the construction manager of the plaintiff, was called as a witness, and he does not explain it. There is much argument between counsel as to the interpretation of the contract between the parties. There is no claim of ambiguity; each insists that it was plain; but the appellant asserts that the trial court really changed its wording, and interpreted it in opposition to its plain terms. We do not so see it. It seems to us quite plain that the contract required the piles to be driven until a penetration of not more than one inch resulted from the last 10 blows of the hammer. The standard of hammer blows was 10. If there was no penetration of more than one inch under the last 10 blows, then the driving might cease. The driving was to go on, however, until that result was attained. Such was what the contract required, and that was not done as to the 23 disputed piles, and hence as to them the contract was not performed by the plaintiff. Neither party asked to go to the jury, for there was no possible dispute as to the facts.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
JENKS, P. J., and CARR, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ., concur. THOMAS, J., reads for reversal, and for judgment in favor of plaintiff for the price of the piles in dispute.