Bresler v. Pendell

• Decision Date: 08 January 1864
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Lewis Bresler v. Henry Pendell

12 Mich. 224

Lewis Bresler v. Henry Pendell

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 8, 1864

Heard October 24, 1863 [Syllabus Material]

Error to Wayne Circuit.

The cause, in the court below, was referred to a referee, who reported the following facts:

"That in the month of May or June, 1860, one Charles E. Bresler made a contract with Eugene St. Amour, for the erection by the said St. Amour, for said Bresler, of a block of buildings on Michigan avenue in the city of Detroit. That according to said contract, said block of buildings was to be two stories in height, with walls of eight inches in thickness, and that the pillars of said block and the lintels were to be of wood. That after said contract was so made, St. Amour sublet to the plaintiff in this cause, the job of doing the stone, mason and brick work of said block. That after said subletting, the plan of said block was twice changed, the first change being intended to make said block three stories in height instead of two, and substituting iron pillars and lintels instead of wood, and increasing the thickness of some of the walls to said block; and the second change being the same as the first, with the addition of a fourth story to said block. The said plaintiff entered into the prosecution of said work under his agreement with said St. Amour, and prosecuted the same to completion. That during the progress of said work said defendant was about said block much of the time overseeing its construction, and giving directions as to the same. That said St. Amour failed to comply with his agreement with said plaintiff, in that he did not make the payments for said services, in accordance with his contract with said plaintiff, and that, in consequence thereof, said plaintiff twice abandoned said job, and refused to proceed further with the same. That on both of said occasions, said defendant requested said plaintiff not to abandon said job, and promised him that if he would continue the same to completion, he, the said defendant, would pay him or would see him paid, and that under said promise, said plaintiff resumed said job after so twice abandoning it, and completed the same; but that said promise, so made by said defendant was not in writing, and that the said original contract, between said St. Amour and plaintiff, was still in existence and uncanceled.

"That in consequence of the above mentioned changes made in said block, the following extra...