Case Name: The Asphalt Paving and Contracting Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-03-22
Citations: 149 A.D. 632
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Asphalt Paving and Contracting Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
The Asphalt Paving and Contracting Company, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
First Department,
March 22, 1912.
See head note in Asphalt P. & C. Co. v. City of New York, No. 2 (ante, p. 622).
Appeal by the defendant, The City of New York, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 28th day of November, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 21st day of November, 1910, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Terence Farley, for the appellant.
L. Laflin Kellogg, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Dowling, J.:
The judgment and order appealed from will be affirmed, with costs, upon the grounds stated in the opinion in action No. 2, between the same parties (149 App. Div. 622), and upon the further ground that under the amended pleadings in this action defendant claimed that it had given notice to make the repairs in question to the Barber Asphalt Company as assignee of the Warren-Scharf Asphalt Paving Company. It was the defendant's contention that the Barber Company was acting as such assignee, but it utterly failed to sustain its contention by proof, and the verdict was, therefore, properly directed.
The judgment and order appealed from are, therefore, affirmed, with costs to respondent.
Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin and Miller, JJ., concurred.