Brown v. Hall
| Citation | 140 N.W. 128,121 Minn. 61 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,905 -- (49) |
| Parties | DANA BROWN and Another v. A. K. HALL |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Morrison county to recover $ 323.48 upon a written contract made a part of the complaint. The answer admitted the execution of the contract but alleged that plaintiffs abandoned and failed to perform it; it further alleged that by the failure to perform the contract defendant had suffered a loss of $ 500, for which he demanded judgment. The case was tried before Taylor, J., who denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict of $ 237.06 in favor of plaintiffs. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Order affirmed.
Performance of contract -- question for jury.
Action of the trial court in submitting to the jury the question of substantial performance of a contract to remove "deadhead" logs from the Mississippi river sustained.
E. A Kling, for appellant.
A. H. Burnham, for respondents.
Action to recover the balance claimed to be due on a contract for removing sunken logs from the waters of the Mississippi. The plaintiffs had a verdict, and the defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding or for a new trial.
The following facts were conclusively established: Prior to August 20, 1910, the defendant orally contracted with the Mississippi & Rum River Boom Company to remove during the season of 1910 water-soaked logs, known as "deadheads," from specified portions of the Mississippi river, for which services he was to receive compensation from the company. Thereafter, and on the date stated, he sublet to the plaintiffs a part of the work he had so undertaken to do, such subletting being evidenced by the following contract then executed by the parties:
"This agreement entered into between A. K. Hall, and Dana Brown and W. T. Tourtillotte, in which we the last two named agree to haul or take from the Mississippi river all deadhead logs in said river on both sides from the south line of Lyman Ayer's land to the north line of the same, and to place same logs on the banks of the river in accordance with the requirements of a certain contract between said A. K. Hall and Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. and said A. K. Hall hereby agrees to pay 15c (fifteen cents) for each deadhead, 2/3 of this price at each inspection and the remaining 1/3 at completion of contract."
Pursuant thereto the plaintiffs commenced the work, subletting portions thereof to two separate persons, one of whom was named Estabrook, and altogether 4263 logs were removed, for which the defendant paid plaintiffs ten cents per log, refusing, however, to pay the remaining five cents per log called for by the contract upon its completion. Subsequently Estabrook removed 451 logs, for which the defendant has made no final settlement with the plaintiffs, and which the plaintiffs claim were taken out by Estabrook under his subcontract with them.
The plaintiffs on the trial rested their claim for recovery upon the theory that the removal of the logs last mentioned together with the removal of those first mentioned, and the evidence of other matters received, established a substantial performance of the contract, and the jury so found. The defendant thereupon insisted, and now argues, that the contract was an entire one, and that even if the plaintiffs' claim as to the Estabrook logs was well founded, which he denies, the evidence conclusively established that there was no compliance with the contract, substantial or otherwise. The defendant also urges that the phrase in the contract above quoted, "in accordance with the requirements of a certain contract between said A. K. Hall and Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.," related to the manner of placing the removed logs on the river banks, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial