McMaster v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1886 |
| Citation | 9 N.E. 313,103 N.Y. 547 |
| Parties | McMASTER v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Claim for damages for breach of contract. Decision for the state. Claimant appealed.
J. T. Parkhurst, for appellant.
D. O'Brien, for the State.
In 1870 the legislature passed the act (chapter 378) ‘to establish and organize the Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane.’ The governor was authorized to appoint, by and with the consent of the senate, 10 managers for the asylum, who, among other duties, were to procure plans, designs, and specifications for the construction of the necessary buildings, and to contract for the construction of the same, provided such plans, designs, specifications, contracts, and the terms thereof, should be approved by the governor, state engineer, and comptroller; and further provided that the managers should not adopt any plans for the buildings, nor alter or change the plans adopted, without the assent of the state officers named. In pursuance of the act the governor appointed the managers, and they prepared plans, designs, and specifications, which were approved by the state officers. The plans provided for a central building, and five connecting male wards upon one side, designated A, B, C, D, and E, and five female wards upon the other side, designated by the same letters, and several outbuildings. The managers afterwards advertised for bids for furnishing the dimension stone and block work required for the buildings, and for the cutting of the same, and the firm of Peck & Co. were the lowest bidders for such materials and work, and the managers thereupon awarded the contracts for the materials and work to that firm at the prices bid for them, and the contracts were afterwards duly and formally executed. From time to time during the years 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, and until the month of May, 1876, the firm furnished, upon the asylum grounds, dimension stone and blocks, and cut and prepared the same, and such materials were measured and accepted by the supervising architect and superintendents, and used in the construction and completion of certain of the buildings referred to in the contracts, drawings, plans, and specifications.
On the twenty-fifth day of May, 1876, the managers passed the following resolution: ‘Resolved, that the plans of both ends of the asylum buildings, so far as they refer towards C, D, and E, be so modified as to permit the same to be constructed of brick, with sandstone trimmings, instead of stone entirely, and that the plans, when so modified, be presented to the proper state officers for their approval, as required by law.’ On the seventh day of July, 1876, plans in accordance with this resolution were approved by the proper state officers, and on the seventeenth day of August were finally adopted by the managers. This change in the plans was made without the consent of Peck & Co.; but they furnished and cut whatever stone was required from time to time by the managers and building superintendent to be furnished for the construction of the buildings according to such modified plans, and received compensation in full for such materials and work. At the time of the passage of the resolution above set forth the walls of the central building and male wards A and B were completed according to the original plans, but the walls of the male wards C, D, and E were not then built, and they were subsequently, in 1876 and 1877, prior to the fifth day of November, in the last year, built according to the modified plans. At the last date the managers passed the following resolution: ‘Resolved, that the building superintendent notify Peck & Co. to remove the stone belonging to them from the asylum grounds within ten days from the time they receive such notification from the building superintendent.’ Such notification was given on the next day, and thereafter the contractors were not permitted to furnish more stone, or further to perform their contracts. The female wards have never been constructed, and the buildings have been recognized as completed.
In the year 1881 the claim for damages of Peck & Co. for alleged breach of their contracts on the part of the state was duly assigned to this claimant; and in the month of January, 1882, he duly executed, verified, and presented to the state board of audit his petition, setting forth the particulars of his claim, and praying for the allowance thereof. That petition was pending and undetermined before the board of audit, and was by law transferred to the board of claims when that board was constituted in 1883.
The claim was brought to a hearing before the board of claims; and it found, among other things, that Peck & Co. sustained damages from the breach of the contracts on the part of the state, but dismissed the claim on the sole ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations; and whether it was so barred or not is the sole question for our determination.
It is claimed on behalf of the state that the contracts were abrogated by the acts, chapter 323 of the Laws of 1874, and chapter 264 of the Laws of 1875, and that the breach of the contracts was not later than the date of the passage of the last act, which was more than six years before the presentation of the claim to the board of audit. On the other hand, the claimant contends that the breach which gave his assignors cause of action was not earlier than the twenty-fifth day of May, 1876, within six years before the presentation of the claim.
The act, chapter 323 of 1874, appropriated for ‘the Buffalo State Asylum for the Insane, to be expended only for the completion of the buildings already commenced, the sum of $150,000.’ This provision in no way interfered with the contracts. It simply directed how the money thus appropriated should be used, and in no way worked a repudiation of the contracts. The act also contained the following provision: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emrich v. Little Rock Traction & Electric Co.
...are to be liberally construed. Suth. Const. Stat. § 368. Courts will not presume facts necessary to constitute a bar. 92 N.Y. 239; 103 N.Y. 547; 99 N.Y. 491; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, The Code has abrogated certain statutes. 45 Ark. 275; 29 Ark. 471; 59 Ark. 326; 46 Ark. 438. Repeal by implic......
-
Charbonneau v. State
...452 N.Y.S.2d 1, 437 N.E.2d 260). A new rule should not be applied to invalidate prior, legally effective acts (see, McMaster v. State of New York, 103 N.Y. 547, 9 N.E. 313; see also, Hastings v. Byllesby & Co. (Granbery), 293 N.Y. 413, 57 N.E.2d 737; Rose Assocs. v. Bernstein, 138 Misc.2d 1......
-
Chapman v. State
...accrued (id., at 895, 561 N.Y.S.2d 876; see, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes § 55, at 117-118; McMaster v. State of New York, 103 N.Y. 547, 554, 9 N.E. 313). In fact, "it takes a clear expression of legislative intent to justify a retroactive application of a procedural stat......
-
British America Assur. Co. v. Colorado & S. Ry. Co.
... ... plaintiff, and splitting up the cause of action; third, that ... the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a ... cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and judgment ... entered dismissing the action ... In ... the intention so to do is unequivocally expressed by the ... Legislature. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, §§ 271, ... 272, 273; McMaster v. State of New York, 103 N.Y. 554, 9 N.E ... 313; Bridgewater Bank v. Copeland, 7 Allen (Mass.) 140; ... Davidson v. Gaston, 16 Minn. 238 (Gil ... ...