Case Name: RUSSELL et al. v. BUCKHOUT
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-05-13
Citations: 34 N.Y.S. 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: RUSSELL et al. v. BUCKHOUT.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 34
Pages: 271–273

Head Matter:
(87 Hun, 46.)
RUSSELL et al. v. BUCKHOUT.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 13, 1895.)
Contracts—Death of Party—Liability for Work Done Thereafter.
A contract to do certain repairs on a building for a specific sum is not a personal contract which is terminated by the death of the owner, but the contractor can recover of the administrator for work done thereunder, after the death of the owner, though the owner devised the property, and the devisee directed the contractor to continue the work. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from judgment on report of referee.
Action by William E. Russell and another against Sarah E. Buckhout, as administratrix of Eckford Webb, deceased, for repairing a house under a contract with decedent. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and CULLEN, JJ.
Fred J. Lancaster (Louis O. Van Doren, of counsel), for appellant.
C. & T. Perry, for 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. Rankin, 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, 23 N. E. 452, Judge Finch does state that the executor had no power to put the 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, Ex'rs, 1829.
BROWN, P. J., concurs.