Wyckoff v. . Meyers
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tilden v. Buffalo Office-Building Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- New York State Monitor Milk Pan Co. v. Remington (New York Supreme Court 1886)
- H. M. Hughes Co. v. Sapphire Realty Co. (N.Y. 1962)
- Gay v. Haskins (Superior Court of Buffalo 1895)
- 20 East 74th Street, Inc. v. Minskoff (N.Y. 1955)
- E. E. Smith Contracting Co. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1924)
- Hennebique Construction Co. v. Boston Cold Storage & Terminal Co. (Mass. 1918)
- Scott's v. Chesterman (Va. 1915)
- Southern Manufacturing Co. v. R. L. Moss Manufacturing Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1913)
- St John's College v. . &198tna Indemnity Co. (N.Y. 1911)
- Korbly v. Loomis (Ind. 1909)
- Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & Sampson (Iowa 1904)
- Plumbing Co. v. Carr (W. Va. 1903)
- Smith v. Mayor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
- Duell v. McCraw (New York Supreme Court 1895)
- Gay v. Haskins (Superior Court of Buffalo 1894)
- Fay v. Muhlker (New York Court of Common Pleas 1892)
- McGuire v. City of Rapid City (Supreme Court of Dakota 1889)
- Chism v. Schipper (N.J. 1888)
- McManus v. Gavin (New York Court of Common Pleas 1878)
- Gulick v. Connely (Ind. 1873)
- Glacius v. . Black (N.Y. 1872)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It does not appear, from the evidence, that there were any alterations, deviations, additions or omissions from the contract, under article third of the contract; and, hence, there was no dispute as to extra work, or work omitted, to be settled as provided in article fifth. T„he work provided for in the contract was to be done under the direction and to the satisfaction of the architects. The last payment was not to be made until the plaintiffs obtained the certificate of the architects to the effect that all the work was completely finished. Both parties agreed to abide by the determination of the architects. The plaintiffs were bound, as a condition precedent to final payment by the defendant, to procure the certifi-j cate (if it was not impracticable to get it without their fault) ;| and, whenever they did get it, the defendant was bound to pay, unless he could show that the certificate was obtained by fraud or mistake. There was no attempt to show that the certificate was not given in good faith; and it concludes the rights of both parties. (Butler v. Tucker, 24 Wend., 449; Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y., 176; Stuart v. Keteltas, 36 id., 388.)
It is claimed, however, that the certificate is not in proper form, because it does not, in terms, certify that “the work was completely finished.” If there was no other answer to this, it would be a sufficient answer that the defendant did not place his objection to pay on this ground. He paid §1,000, without any objection to the form of the certificate, and finally objected to paying any more because the work was not completed according to contract. But the certificate is, in sub' stance, all that the contract requires. Plaintiffs were entitled to the §1,800 when the architects should certify to the effect that the work was all completely finished, and not before. The architects certified that the last payment was due according to the contract. This is clearly the same, in effect, as if *146 the architects had certified that the work was all completely done, and that the builders were entitled to the last payment. The contract prescribes no precise form for the certificate; and all that was required was, that the certificate should be, in effect, what the contract required.
The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs. All concur for affirmance.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.