Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
New York Court of Appeals
230 N.Y. 239, 129 N.E. 889 (1921)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Jacob & Youngs (Jacob) (plaintiff) was a general contractor that built a country residence for George Kent (defendant) for over $77,000. The contract required that all plumbing pipe be manufactured by Reading. Jacob completed work in June 1914. In March 1915, Kent learned that much of the plumbing pipe was not manufactured by Reading. Kent’s architect demanded that Jacob replace the pipe. Replacing the pipe, which was encased in the residence’s walls, would have required substantial additional work at great expense to Jacob. Additionally, the existing pipe was of the same quality as Reading pipe, being identical except for the brand name stamped on the pipe. The use of the wrong pipe was merely due to a subcontractor’s inattention, and Kent’s own architect had not noticed the difference. Jacob left the existing pipe untouched and asked the architect for a certificate of completion entitling Jacob to the final payment of $3,483.46. When the architect refused, Jacob sued Kent to recover the outstanding balance under the contract. Kent claimed that by failing to comply with the contract’s terms, Jacob forfeited its right to the final payment. At trial, Jacob was not allowed to introduce evidence that the installed pipe was of the same quality as Reading pipe. The jury entered a verdict for Kent. The appellate court reversed and granted a new trial. Kent appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cardozo, J.)
Dissent (McLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 961,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,006 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New


