Carll v. Spofford

1 Citing case

  1. Kennedy v. McKone

    10 App. Div. 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)   Cited 8 times
    In Kennedy v. McKone, 10 App. Div. 88, 41 N.Y.S. 782, a building contractor entered into a contract for the making of certain alterations and improvements upon defendant's house.

    The legal effect of such an agreement was that Robinson became entitled to recover the reasonable value of the work done, with the limitation that such recovery could not exceed $1,500. The case is not, as the plaintiffs claim, analogous to Carll v. Spofford ( 45 N.Y. 61). There the plaintiff refused to put a limit on the cost of his work, but merely made a "rough guess" that it would not exceed a figure named. Here Robinson definitely fixed a sum which the cost should not exceed, and he cannot recover more than the sum so named.