Case Name: R. YOUNG & BROS. CO. v. SNEDEKER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-07-27
Citations: 130 N.Y.S. 771
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. YOUNG & BROS. CO. v. SNEDEKER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 130
Pages: 771–773

Head Matter:
R. YOUNG & BROS. CO. v. SNEDEKER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
July 27, 1911.)
Contracts (§ 308 )—Building Contracts—Payment.
Defendant contracted for the erection of a dwelling house to be paid for in five payments as the work progressed, and after the second payment had been made, and before another installment had become due, the contractor' gave to plaintiffs, materialmen, an order on account of his contract for the payment of a certain sum, part to be paid when the plastering was completed and the rest when the trim was on, which order was accepted by defendant. Reid, that the order was conditioned on the contractor’s earning the amount specified under his contract.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Dec. Dig. § 308. ]
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Westchester County.
Action by R. Young & Bros. Company against Samuel E. Snedeker. Prom a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, WOODWARD, and RICH, JJ.
Frederick W. Clark, for appellant.
Arthur I. Strang, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Bep’r Indexes-

Opinion:
RICH, J.
The defendant had entered into a contract with one Sherwood, a contractor, for the erection of a dwelling house, in which he undertook to pay for the work and material in five payments as-the work progressed. After the second payment had been made, and before another installment became due, Sherwood gave to plaintiffs (materialmen) an order on account of his contract for the payment of $1,376.26, as follows:
"Six hundred ($600.00) dollars when plastering is completed. Seven hundred seventy-six 26/100 ($776.26) dollars when the trim is on"—which was accepted by defendant.
It appears that within a few days after the order was accepted, and before another payment became due under the contract, Sherwood abandoned the work, and it became necessary for defendant to finish the job himself. It also appears from evidence given upon the part of the defendant that the plastering was not completed and the trim was not on. The learned county judge treated the order and acceptance as an independent contract for the payment of money. In this I think he was in error. It seems clear that it was the intention of the parties that the order should be conditional upon the contractor's earning the amounts specified under his contract, and the question of fact as to whether anything was due ought to have been submitted to-the jury.
It follows, therefore, that the judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur, except WOODWARD, J., dissenting.