TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Eastern Steel Company v. Globe Indemnity Company

The Eastern Steel Company, Appellant, v. Globe Indemnity Company Et Al., Respondents

The Eastern Steel Co. v. Globe Indem. Co., 125 N.E. 917 (N.Y. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 14, 1919
Citations
125 N.E. 917227 N.Y. 5861919 N.Y. LEXIS 741
Summary
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment • of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 17, 1918, which unanimously affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order of Special Term sustaining a demurrer of one of the defendants to the complaint and granting a motion by the other defendants for judgment on the pleadings. Wills & Marvin Co. (not a party herein) on January 6, 1913, entered into a contract with the city of New" York to do certain work and furnish certain materials in connection with the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, at the same time filing with the proper authorities of the said city a bond conditioned for the faithful performance of the said contract with the three defendants herein as sureties. Some time thereafter Wills & Marvin Co. entered into a contract with the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, which as subcontractor agreed to. furnish certain materials required under said contract at the price of $127,891.76. The complaint alleged that all of said sum was paid to plaintiff except $21,915.56, for which amount it sued. The bond contained the following clause: “ and shall promptly make payments of the sums due to all persons supplying labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided in the said contract,” upon which plaintiff relied. The complaint was dismissed upon the ground that the bond ran to the city of New York, and presumably was executed solely for its benefit and not for that of subcontractors.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1920: 11922: 11929: 11931: 21932: 11933: 11938: 11954: 21955: 11962: 11968: 119202026peak 1931 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list