Case Name: John Williams et al., Appellants, v. The City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-10-03
Citations: 219 N.Y. 545
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Williams et al., Appellants, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 219
Pages: 545–545

Head Matter:
John Williams et al., Appellants, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Williams v. City of New York, 171 App. Div. 952, affirmed.
(Argued June 14, 1916;
decided October 3, 1916.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 31, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiffs entered into a contract with the city of New York, acting by and- through the aqueduct commissioners, wherein the plaintiffs agreed to furnish all the materials and labor for the performance, and in a good, substantial and workmanlike manner construct a dam on the Croton river at Muscoot mountain in the towns of Somers and Bedford, Westchester county, to be known as the Muscoot dam, with its gate houses, overflow and other appurtenances. Subsequently plaintiffs, alleging breach of contract by the defendant, abandoned the work and brought this action to recover the value of work done and damages. Defendant by way of counterclaim sought to recover the difference between the contract price and the amount expended to complete the work.
L. Laflin Kellogg for appellants.
Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel.(Terence Farley, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., -Collin, Cuddebaok, Hogan and Pound, JJ. Hisoook, J., dissents on the ground that it was error for the court to hold as matter of law that the'city did not commit,-a breach of this con-tract by withholding payment on the certificates.