Elting v. Dayton

Pleading—Amendment oe Complaint aetbr Trial. Plaintiff alleged in bis complaint that he had performed the contract sued on. After the case had been fully tried on the merits, the referee found that the contract had not been performed within the time limited, but that defendant had waived strict performance. Held, under Code CivilProc. §723, which provides that “the court may upon the trial, or at any other stage of the action, before or after, judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as it deems just, amend any pleading, ” that plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint on payment of costs.

Appeal from special term, New York county. Action by Cornelius W. H. Biting against Charles W. Dayton. From an order denying leave to amend the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. February 25,1885, the plaintiff, a builder, entered into a contract with the defendant, the owner of five houses, to repair them, according to plans and specifications, for $9,726, on or before April 20, 1885. The work was not in fact completed until May 15, 18ti5. The defendant paid towards the contract price, March 25, 1885, $2,000; April 10, 1885, $2,000; May 8, 1885. $2,000. August 25, 1885, this action was begun, to recover $3,726, the remainder of the contract price, and $500 for extra work, which was set up as a first cause of action. In the first count the plaintiff averred that he had performed his contract. As a second cause of action, it was alleged that Hart Z. Norton had done work and furnished materials for the buildings for which the defendant promised to pay $600, and that the claim therefor had been assigned "to the plaintiff, who demanded judgment for $4,826. The defendant admitted the making of the contract with the plaintiff as alleged, and that he had paid $6,000 thereon. He denied that the plaintiff had pertormed his contract, and also denied that he was indebted in the sum of $500 for extra work. The defendant further denied that he had made a contract with Norton, and was indebted on account of work performed thereon in the sum of §600. As a second defense, and as a counterclaim, the defendant averred that the plaintiS had not performed his contract in a good and workmanlike manner, and had failed to complete it within the time limited, to his damage in the sum of §2,500, for which he demanded judgment. The case was tried before, a referee, who found that the work was not completed within the time agreed, but that the delay was caused by the defendant's ordering additional work, which was performed by the plaintiS, which was worth §440. He also found that Norton had, under his contract, done work for the defendant at the agreed price of §600, and that the claim had been assigned to the plaintiS. He disallowed the defendant’s counterclaim, and ordered a judgment for the plaintiS for §4.766, which was reversed by the general term, and a new trial granted. The reversal was placed on the ground that, the plaintiS having alleged performance, and not having averred an extension of time therefor, he could not, as against the objection and exception of the defendant, without amendment of the complaint, recover on the theory that strict performance had been waived. Biting v. Dayton, (Sup.) 17 N. Y. Supp. 849. After the new trial was ordered, the plaintiff moved at special term for leave to amend his complaint, by averring that he was prevented from performing his contract within the time limited, by reason of the additional work ordered and required, and that defendant had waived the completion of the work within the time mentioned in the contract.