Barriere v. Depatie
| Citation | 219 Mass. 33,106 N.E. 572 |
| Parties | BARRIERE v. DEPATIE. |
| Decision Date | 24 October 1914 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John F. Jandron, of Worcester, for plaintiff.
William C. Foley, of Worcester, for defendant.
The plaintiff, never having been licensed either under R. L. c 103, or St. 1909, c. 536, as a master or journeyman plumber the defendant contends, that even if a permit was obtained from the city, and the work was performed by licensed plumbers and accepted by the inspector of plumbing, yet the statute has been violated and the contract in question therefore is void. The contract has been executed, and if the consideration is single and any part is tainted with illegality there can be no recovery. Kennedy v Welch, 196 Mass. 592, 596, 83 N.E. 11. What were its terms? The 'estimate' given for the work included both labor and materials. But an estimated price may exceed or fall below the actual expenditure. It is merely an opinion and not the equivalent of an amount mutually agreed upon for which the contractor engages to perform the work. The declaration being on an account annexed no reason appears why the plaintiff cannot recover for materials furnished. Jones v. Ilsley, 1 Allen, 273; Dean v. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480; Whitcomb v. Boston Diary Co., 218 Mass. 24, 105 N.E. 554.
A more difficult question is whether the action can be maintained on the items for labor. The statute is to be read as a whole to ascertain the legislative purpose, and unless it is necessary to hold the contract void in order to accomplish that purpose the inference is that the statute was not intended to be prohibitory of the contract. Bowditch v. New England Life Ins. Co., 141 Mass. 292, 4 N.E. 798, 55 Am. Rep. 474; Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa, 546; Pratt v. Short, 79 N.Y. 437, 445, 35 Am. Rep. 531; Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527, 539, 7 L.Ed. 508; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79, 84, 13 L.Ed. 901. It relates to the supervision of plumbing, and full provisions are made for the examination, licensing and registration of master and journeyman plumbers, and the approval of their work by an inspector. Its primary object is the conservation of the public health from the deleterious effects which experience has shown arise from unsanitary and insufficient plumbing work due to the lack of technical knowledge and skill of those who perform it. The penalty found in St. 1901, c. 536, § 10, makes every person engaged in the business of plumbing as a master plumber, or working at the business as a journeyman plumber without being registered or licensed as required by the act, guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by fine. And by section 9 a 'master or employing plumber' is defined as meaning 'a plumber having a regular place of business and who himself, or by journeyman plumbers in his employ,...
To continue reading
Request your trial