Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
New York Court of Appeals
230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
Jacob & Youngs (Jacob) (plaintiff) was a general contractor that built a country residence for Kent (defendant). The contract stated that Jacob was to be paid $77,000, and one specification in the contract was that all pipes used be manufactured in Reading, Pennsylvania. Jacob completed work in June 1914. In March 1915, Kent noticed that some of the pipe was manufactured in other places besides Reading. Kent demanded the pipe be replaced. Replacement of the pipe, however, would require substantial additional work and expense by Jacob. Additionally, the existing pipe was of the same quality as Reading pipe and was supplied based on an innocent mistake by Jacob caused by the inattention of its subcontractor. Jacob left the existing pipe untouched and asked for a certificate from Kent that the final payment of $3,483.46 was due. Kent refused to supply the certificate, and Jacob brought suit to recover damages. At trial, Jacob was not allowed to introduce evidence that the pipe installed was of the same quality as Reading pipe, and the jury entered a verdict for Kent. The appellate court reversed and granted a new trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cardozo, J.)
Dissent (McLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
