953 F.2d 641 (4th Cir. 1992), 91-2323, U.S. for Use and Ben. of Ace Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Bayport Const. Corp.
|Docket Nº:||91-2323, 91-2324.|
|Citation:||953 F.2d 641|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of ACE SHEET METAL WORKS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYPORT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Defendants-Appellants, and Ways Mechanical, Incorporated, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America for the Use and Benefit of ACE SHEET METAL WORKS, INCORPORATED, Plainti|
|Case Date:||January 29, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted Nov. 19, 1991.
As Amended March 2, 1992.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-90-88-N)
Guilford D. Ware, Martha M. Poindexter, Crenshaw, Ware & Martin, Norfolk, Va., for appellants.
Benjamin A. Hubbard, III, Outland, Gray, O'Keefe & Hubbard, Chesapeake, Va., for appellee.
Before K.K. HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Bayport Construction Corp. (Bayport), Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., and Ways Mechanical, Inc. (Ways), appeal the district court's judgment holding the three defendants jointly and severally liable to Ace Sheet Metal Works, Inc. (Ace) for a sum of $21,873.07, and holding Ways liable to Bayport and Aetna on their cross-claims for indemnification for any portion of the judgment not paid by Ways. The Appellants claim on appeal that the district court erred by considering evidence concerning the custom and usage of trade in contradiction to the express terms of a construction contract and in finding what the evidence demonstrated. We find that because the contracts signed by the various parties did not clearly reveal which party was responsible for providing certain electrical devices for the construction project at issue here, the district court properly considered evidence of custom and usage in interpreting this contract. In addition, we find that the district court's determination that Ways was responsible for providing the parts in question was not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP