Hastorf v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1904 |
| Citation | 128 F. 982 |
| Parties | HASTORF v. DEGNON-McLEAN CONTRACTING CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Louis B. Adams, for libellant.
Wilcox & Green, for respondent.
This action was brought by Albert H. Hastorf against the Degnon-McLean Contracting Company to recover the sum of $1,720 alleged to be due for the receipt and disposition of 3,440 truck loads, at 50 cents each, of excavated material from the Rapid Transit Subway, received by the libellant from the respondent at his dumping board at 44th Street, North River, in September 1902. There is no dispute as to the rate or amount, but the respondent, admitting something to be due sought by its answer, to set off the cost of the necessary labor for receiving and unloading the material, amounting, it was claimed, to the sum of $740.03 and the further sum of $350, altogether $1,090.03, and offered to allow judgment to be entered for $629.97. At the trial, however, the claimed set-off of $350 was withdrawn, because of a doubt of the court's jurisdiction to entertain it, as it appeared that it arose under an independent contract, and the controversy is with respect to the claimed set-off of $740.03.
The contract was an oral one, made by the libellant in person and a civil engineer, in the employ of the respondent. These witnesses both admit that the question of labor was not discussed between them. The question turns on whether the parties impliedly made an agreement with respect to the receiving and unloading of the trucks on the scows.
The libellant and a number of witnesses for the respondent have been examined. The libellant testifies that there was no agreement, express or implied, with respect to the labor. The respondent's witnesses show their experience with dumps and say that the owners thereof generally furnish the labor. This kind of testimony, however, does not go far towards establishing a liability of the kind at issue and, in my judgment, is inadequate where there is a positive denial of the assumption of liability. I find from the libellant's testimony, which is not overcome by any direct testimony from the respondent's witnesses, that he did deny the liability for this claim when it was first put forward by the respondent. The libellant is corroborated by the circumstance that the accounts between the parties were settled every month, without any attempt on the respondent's part to realize this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Monongahela Rye Liquors
...of set-off is that it arises out of a transaction extrinsic to that out of which the primary claim arose. Cf. Hastorf v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., D.C.N.Y., 128 F. 982, 983. In short, a set-off rests upon a claim or demand based upon an independent cause of action. The independent natu......
-
Morton v. Whitson
... ... Cas. 1914B, 115, 123 P ... 392, 394; Sawyer v. Van Deren, 74 N.J.L. 673, 66 A ... 396; Hastorf v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., 128 ... F. 982; Williams v. Neeley, 134 F. 1, 67 C. C. A. 171, ... ...
-
In re Lurie
...aff'd in part sub nom. McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 338 U.S. 241, 70 S.Ct. 4, 94 L.Ed. 31 (1949); Hastorf v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co., 128 F. 982, 983 (S.D.N.Y.1904). That does not appear to be the case Added conceptual difficulty with the "setoff" theory is evident from Bruce's......
-
United Transportation & Lighterage Co. v. New York & Baltimore Transp. Line
... ... he was a common officer of both contracting corporations. It ... is true that this contract related to the same vessels which ... he had ... cited upon this point, Davidson v. Greer (D.C.) 127 ... F. 999; Hastorf v. Degnon-McLean Contracting Co ... (D.C.) 128 F. 982; Emery v. Tweedie Trading Co ... (D.C.) ... ...