Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Thomas Taylor, Respondent, v. Alexander Philip, Appellant, 1878 — 75 N.Y. 588 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Thomas Taylor, Respondent, v. Alexander Philip, Appellant
75 N.Y. 588·New York Court of Appeals·1878·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Thomas Taylor, Respondent, v. Alexander Philip, Appellant.
(Argued June 17, 1878 ;
decided November 12, 1878.)
This was an actio u upon a contract. Defendant having been invited by the building committee of a religious society to make tenders for doing the stonecutters’ work upon a church, plaintiff sent to him a letter stating that he understood such an invitation had been extended, and proposing to furnish detailed bills of quantities for three-quarters of one per cent on the amount of the tender, to be paid only by the party who might get the work. Defendant accepted the offer, the bills were furnished ; defendant made a tender, which was rejected by the committee, who accepted the offer of another. Defendant and others thereafter took a sub-contract from the successful bidder for this and other work. Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover ; that although defendant had the benefit of the use of the bills of quantities so furnished, yet that this did not answer the proviso of the contract upon wdiich alone he was under express legal obligation to pay ; that when defendant’s tender was rejected and that of a third person accepted, the contract was abandoned, and it was not revived because of the sub-contract.
Payson Merrill for appellant.
A. Bell Malcomson, jr. for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur, except Church, Ck. J. and Miller, J. absent at argument.
Judgment reversed.