In re Freel

Decision Date14 January 1896
Citation42 N.E. 586,148 N.Y. 165
PartiesIn re FREEL.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, Second department.

Application by Edward Freel for a writ of mandamus requiring the comptroller to approve the relator's claim, and to make and sign a warrant for its payment. From an order made by the general term (35 N. Y. Supp. 59) affirming an order of the special term directing a peremptory writ of mandamus to issue, the comptroller appeals. Affirmed.

Albert G. McDonald, for appellant.

B. F. Tracy, for respondent.

MARTIN, J.

This is an appeal by the comptroller of the city of Brooklyn from an order made by the general term of the Second department affirming an order of the special term which directed that a peremptory mandamus issue, requiring the comptroller to approve of the relator's claim, and to make and sign a warrant for its payment. On the 16th of December, 1889, an agreement was entered into between the city of Brooklyn and the relator, by the provisions of which the latter was to furnish certain specified materials and perform certain designated labor, for which he was to receive the compensation provided for in the agreement. A reading of the entire contract between the parties renders it obvious that the contract was not that the relator should complete any particular structure, as such, but that he should furnish certain materials and perform certain labor in connection with the construction of the extension of the aqueduct and waterworks of the city of Brooklyn, for which he was to be paid an agreed price per foot, yard, thousand, or ton, as the case might be. The work was to be performed and the materials furnished under the direction and control of the defendant's engineer and commissioner of city works. Whether, when completed, the structure would answer the purpose for which it was intended, was no part of the contract on the part of the relator. If he furnished the materials and performed the labor specified in accordance with the terms of the contract, it was a compliance with it upon his part. The contract between the parties contained a provision that if any faults or defects became apparent within the period of six months from the completion of the work, requiring repairs, the contractor should make such repairs, or, in case of his omission to do so, they were to be made at the expense of the contractor, and the amount deducted from a portion of the contract price which was retained for that purpose. It is to be observed that this test does not relate to the sufficiency of the reservoir, but only to faults or defects in the work and materials performed and furnished by the contractor. Nor did the acceptance of the work, or the payment of the remainder of the contract price, depend upon or await the result of the test, as the contract clearly provided that the repairs, if any were required, should, if not made by the relator, be paid for from the 8 per cent. retained by the city. The contract also contained the following provision: ‘To prevent all disputes and litigation, it is further agreed by and between the parties to this contract that the engineer shall in all cases determine the amount or the quantity of the several kinds of work which are to be paid for under this contract, and he shall determine all questions in relation to said work and the construction thereof, and he shall in all cases decide every question which may arise relative to the execution of this contract on the part of the said contractor, and his estimate and decision shall be final and conclusive upon said contractor; and such estimate and decision, in case any question shall arise, shall be a condition precedent to the right of the party of the second part to receive any money under this agreement.’ It likewise provided that the engineer should, once a month, make estimates of the amount of work done and materials furnished, and of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • The State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1899
    ... ... Fleming, 93 Mo ... 321, 5 S.W. 813; Merrill on Mandamus, secs. 126, 104 and 105; ... High on Extr. Leg. Rem. (3 Ed.), sec. 351; Lindsey v ... Auditor, 66 Ky. 231, 3 Bush. (Ky.) 231; Danley v ... Whiteley, 14 Ark. 687; Hunt v. Broderick, 104 ... Cal. 313, 37 P. 1040; In re Freel, 148 N.Y. 165, 42 ... N.E. 586.] ...          It is ... admitted by relators, that, ordinarily, mandamus will not lie ... against the disbursing officers of the city to compel them to ... audit and pay claims in the absence of an appropriation for ... such claims and salaries. The ... ...
  • State Div. of Human Rights on Complaint of Geraci v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, 1
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 8, 1982
    ...the government entity (see People ex rel. Graves v. Sohmer, 207 N.Y. 450, 101 N.E. 164; Quayle v. State of New York, supra; Matter of Freel, 148 N.Y. 165, 42 N.E. 586; Matter of Fehlhaber Corp. v. O'Hara, 53 A.D.2d 746, 348 N.Y.S.2d 270; Matter of Buffalo Dump Truck Owners Assoc. v. Condon,......
  • State ex rel City of Fargo v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1912
    ... ... State, 53 ... Ind. 60; Rice v. State, 95 Ind. 33; State ex ... rel. Minneapolis Tribune Co. v. Ames, 31 Minn. 440, 18 ... N.W. 277; State ex rel. Ahrens v. Fiedler, 43 N.J.L ... 400; People ex rel. New York & H. R. Co. v ... Havemeyer, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 219, 3 Hun, 97; Re Freel, ... 148 N.Y. 165, 42 N.E. 586, affirming 89 Hun, 79, 35 N.Y.S ... 59; State ex rel. Treat v. Richter, 37 Wis. 275; ... People ex rel. Taylor v. Brennan, 39 Barb. 522; ... People ex rel. Hathorn v. White, 54 Barb. 622; ... Pearsons v. Ranlett, 110 Mass. 118; Smalley v ... Yates, ... ...
  • H. P. Cornell Co. v. Barber
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1910
    ...day, therefore, the plaintiff should not be sent this long way round to reach a point nearly and directly in view." In the Matter of Freel, 148 N. Y. 165, 42 N. E. 586, an appeal by the comptroller of the city of Brooklyn from an order made by the General Term of the Second Department, affi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT