Case Name: William E. Russell and Another, Respondents, v. Sarah E. Buckhout, as Administratrix, etc., of Eckford Webb, Deceased, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-05
Citations: 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 46
Docket Number: 
Parties: William E. Russell and Another, Respondents, v. Sarah E. Buckhout, as Administratrix, etc., of Eckford Webb, Deceased, Appellant.
Judges: Brown, P. J., concurred, but thought the plaintiffs should not have costs.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 94
Pages: 46–49

Head Matter:
William E. Russell and Another, Respondents, v. Sarah E. Buckhout, as Administratrix, etc., of Eckford Webb, Deceased, Appellant.
‘Owner of real estate and a contractor — not in the relation of master and servant — enforcement of performance of a contract of a decedent for the erection of a building.
The relation of master and servant does not exist between the owner of real estate and a person with whom he contracts to erect a building thereon.
Semble, that where a decedent contracts for the erection of a building on land, his heir at law can enforce the performance of the contract at the expense of the personal estate of the deceased.
Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal by the defendant, Sarah E. Buckhout, as administratrix, etc., of Eckford Webb, deceased, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of tlie county of Kings on the 24th day of December, 1894, upon the report of a referee.
Louis O. Van Doren and Fred. J. Lancaster, for the appellant.
C. & T. Perry, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Cullen, J.:
There was nothing " personal " in this contract in suit. It was a mere contract to do certain work for a stipulated price. The plaintiffs were not to perform it personally, but at least in part through their workmen. No relation of master and servant existed between the parties.
It is true that upon the death of Webb the house went by devise to Mrs. Ranken, and his personal representatives had no interest in it. But this would be the case in every contract for work on real estate where the testator does not devise the realty to his executors, or direct an equitable conversion. In Lacy v. Getman (119 N. Y. 111) Judge Finch does state that the executor had no power to put plaintiff at work on the land, or interest in it. But I think the decision does not proceed on that ground, but on the ground that death would substitute a new master.
It has been held that where the deceased had contracted for the erection of a building on land, the heir at law could enforce the performance of the contract at the expense of the personal estate. .(3 Williams Executors, 1829.) '
Brown, P. J., concurred, but thought the plaintiffs should not have costs.