Case Name: Raymond Concrete Pile Company, Appellant, v. John Thatcher & Son, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-11-13
Citations: 221 N.Y. 715
Docket Number: 
Parties: Raymond Concrete Pile Company, Appellant, v. John Thatcher & Son, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
Raymond Concrete Pile Company, Appellant, v. John Thatcher & Son, Respondent.
(Argued October 24, 1917;
decided November 13, 1917.)
Raymond Concrete Pile Co. v. Thatcher & Son, 166 App. Div. 522, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 18, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court for the amount of an offer of judgment made by the defendant. The suit was brought to recover the sum of $1,703.62, with interest, which the plaintiff alleged became due to it from the defendant under the terms of a written contract whereby the plaintiff agreed to place certain piles for the defendant at the price fixed by the agreement. Plaintiff alleged that it placed the piles and became entitled to the money. The amount sued for is the balance of the contract price. The answer was a general denial of the material allegations of the complaint. At the trial the defendant insisted that the plaintiff was not entitled to be paid for twenty-three of the piles on the ground that as to them plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of the contract. The defendant’s view of the contract was adopted by the trial justice, who after considerable argument with plaintiff’s attorney at the end of the plaintiff’s case decided that the twenty-three piles which the defendant refused to pay for were not placed in accordance with the provisions of the contract. As the defendant had made" an offer of judgment for the number of the piles admitted to have been placed in accordance with the contract, a verdict was thereupon directed by the court in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the defendant’s offer.
Martin Conboy for appellant.
Benjamin Reass, Hugo Hirsh and Emanuel Newman for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cabdozo, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.