Skinner Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Shevlin Eng'g Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1931 |
| Citation | 257 N.Y. 562,178 N.E. 795 |
| Parties | SKINNER BROS. MANUFACTURING CO., Inc., Appellant, v. SHEVLIN ENGINEERING COMPANY, Inc., Defendant, and New York Rapid Transit Corporation et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment, entered March 23, 1931, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (231 App. Div. 656, 248 N. Y. S. 380), which reversed an order of Special Term denying motions by the defendants-respondents for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint as to them, and granted the motions. The defendant New York Rapid Transit Corporation entered into a contract with defendant Shevlin Engineering Company whereby the latter agreed to furnish and install a heating system in property leased by the Rapid Transit Corporation. The plaintiff as a subcontractor of the Shevlin Company furnished and delivered materials which were incorporated in the heating system, of which fact it gave notice to the Transit Corporation. Thereupon the Transit Corporation notified the Shevlin Company that it would not pay it any money due under the contract unless a surety company bond was delivered to protect it against plaintiff's claim. The bond was furnished by the defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and the Transit Corporation thereupon paid to the Shevlin Company the amount due for the work done. The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover an amount due for the materials furnished by it. The Appellate Division directed a dismissal of the complaint as to the Rapid Transit Corporation, on the ground that it fails to state that any promise was made by the Rapid Transit Corporation to pay the plaintiff, and as to the surety company on the ground that the bond of indemnity was not made for the benefit of plaintiff and that there was no promise on the part of the surety company to do anything for plaintiff's benefit.Harry Merwin and John F. Collins, both of New York City, for appellant.
D. A. Marsh and George D. Yeomans, both of Brooklyn, for respondent New York Rapid Transit Corporation.
William J. McArthur, of New York City, for respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glusband v. Fittin Cunningham Lauzon, Inc.
... ... See, e.g., Skinner Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Shevlin Engineering Co., 231 A.D. 656, ... ...
-
Ratigan v. New York Central Railroad Co.
...489, 2 L.R.A. 648; Skinner Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Shevlin Engineering Co., 1st Dep't, 1931, 231 App.Div. 656, 248 N.Y.S. 380, affirmed 257 N.Y. 562, 178 N.E. 795. Moreover, Rigney v. New York Central & Hudson River R. R., 1916, 217 N.Y. 31, 111 N.E. 226, and Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Dugan & M......
-
Jefferson v. Sinclair Refining Co.
...254 N.Y.S. 749; Skinner Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Shevlin Engineering Co., 231 App.Div. 656, 659-660, 248 N.Y.S. 380, 383, 384, affirmed 257 N.Y. 562, 178 N.E. 795. Had the policy expressly provided for indemnification against the liability of Sinclair, its right to sue thereon would be clear. Cf. ......
-
Mars v. Flatiron Services, Inc.
...254 N.Y.S. 749; Skinner Bros. Mfg. Co. v . Shevlin Engineering Co., 231 App.Div. 656, 659-660, 248 N.Y.S. 380, 383, 384, affirmed 257 N.Y. 562, 178 N.E. 795.' The law is well settled that if the insurance involves an indemnity policy, the injured person has no right of action against the in......