De Boom v. Priestly
| Decision Date | 01 December 1850 |
| Citation | 1 Cal. 206 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | DE BOOM v. PRIESTLY, ET AL. |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The points on which the decision is based are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Alexander Wells, for Plaintiff.
Gregory Yale, for Defendants.
By the Court, BENNETT, J. There was a special contract between the parties for the erection of a building, which was deviated from in pursuance of instructions from the defendants. The action was brought on a quantum meruit. The defendants demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and they put in a plea to the merits. The plea was a waiver of the demurrer, and no point can be made upon that now.
At the trial, the Court admitted testimony of the value of the plaintiff's services, though there was evidence of a special con- tract. But the contract had been deviated from, and therefore the evidence was proper.
The only question in the case, which presents any difficulty, arises upon the third instruction asked by the defendants. That was as follows: "If the jury believe that there was a special contract between the parties to erect the buildings at a specified price, and according to an agreed plan, which was afterwards changed by consent, the plaintiffs are compelled to sue upon that special contract so far as it can be traced, and cannot recover upon an implied contract for work and labor, or for materials."
This instruction was, however, properly refused. In such a case as this, the plaintiff can sue upon an implied contract. Indeed, should he sue upon the express contract, he must necessarily fail; because he cannot prove that the work has been done according to the terms of the contract; and he must recover, if at all, upon an implied contract for work and labor and for materials; though, at the trial, as the measure of compensation, the recovery must be graduated according to the terms of the contract, so far as the work can be traced under the contract. But this was not the instruction asked by the defendants. The judgment should be affirmed.
Ordered accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huber v. St. Joseph's Hospital
...Harris v. Murphy, 119 N.C. 34, 56 Am. St. Rep. 656, 25 S.E. 972, 34 L. R. A. 803; Emmerson v. Slater, 22 How. 28, 16 L.Ed. 360; DeBoom v. Priestly, 1 Cal. 206, and cases cited note; McFadden v. O'Donnell, 18 Cal. 160.) Where an architect also acted as the owner's superintendent of the work,......
-
City of Lewiston v. Brinton
...a demurrer, remarking that hundreds of cases have been reviewed in this way, and expressly overruling Pierce v. Minturn, supra, and De Boon v. Priestly, supra. The reasoning of these later California cases is cogent we believe they announce the proper construction to be given sec. 6725, C. ......
-
Harms v. Fitzgerald
...541; Hill v. Green, 4 Peck, 114; Haywood v. Leonard, 7 Peck, 181; Bailey v. Wood, 17 N. H. 365; Weeden v. Fiske, 50 N. H. 125; De Boon v. Priestly, 1 Cal. 206; Jones v. Woodburg, 11 B. Mon. 167; Robeson v. Godfrey, 1 Holt N. P. 236; Merrill v. Ithica, etc. R. R. Co. 16 Wend. 586; Koon v. Gr......
-
The County of Cook v. Harms
...Y. 411; Doster v. Brown, 25 Geo. 24; Fuller v. Brown, 11 Met. 440; Holmes v. Stummel, 17 Ill. 455; Koon v. Greenman, 7 Wend. 122; DeBoom v. Priestly, 1 Cal. 206; Jones v. Woodbury, 11 B. Mon. 168. What a corporation does, or its object for so doing, can only be made to appear by its record:......