Burgess v. Grooms
| Decision Date | 01 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 1062.,1062. |
| Citation | 81 A.2d 338 |
| Parties | BURGESS v. GROOMS et ux. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
Appellant, plaintiff below, sued for the value of electrical fixtures he had installed in defendants' home. He alleged that defendants were building a house under a direct contract with a builder, Allen J. Lloyd; that Lloyd sub-contracted to him the electrical wiring work to be done there; but that defendants directly obligated themselves to pay him for certain fixtures installed in the house.
The trial court ordered judgment for defendants on the grounds that plaintiff had not sustained the burden of proving that he had a direct contract with defendants for the installation of the fixtures and had not sustained the burden of proving that there was an implied promise on the part of the defendants to pay for the fixtures. Plaintiff appeals claiming that the judgment was without evidence to support it, was plainly wrong, and that the trial judge erred in ruling that under the facts in the case the law would not imply a promise to pay.
Testimony for plaintiff was that defendants agreed to pay for the fixtures. This was denied by defendants. They said they had a written contract with Lloyd to build their house for $14,500. They personally had no sub-contracts in connection with the work except for heat and plumbing, and one $26 wiring job with plaintiff Burgess. Burgess had a contract with Lloyd, the builder, to do the electrical wiring work. When the question of the fixtures arose the Grooms were advised by the builder to consult Burgess about them. After discussing the matter with Burgess, on his advice they went to a local supply house and selected fixtures in the amount of $134.47. The supplier charged them to Burgess upon his verification and they were delivered to the premises and installed by Burgess. The Grooms contended that they never had a contract with Burgess to pay him for the fixtures, believing that he should look to Lloyd. In the plans and specifications it was set out: "Allow $250.00 to purchase the electric fixtures, including necessary light bulbs." The Grooms said they did not spend $250.00, however, because of the further clause which said, "If the net cost to the contractor is less than the allowance made, the contractor shall credit the owner with the difference."
In October 1948 there was about $1000 remaining unpaid on the Grooms' contract with Lloyd, the builder, and at his request they agreed to pay the bills of some of the subcontractors to whom money was still owed, up to the amount of the money still due Lloyd. Among the bills so paid was the bill of Burgess for his wiring subcontract. It was then that Burgess released his mechanic's lien for the electric wiring and fixtures. The Grooms paid certain other of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redd v. L & A Contracting Co.
...al. v. Strand, 21 Wash.2d 217, 150 P.2d 702; Callahan v. Railroad Fed. Sav. & Loan Association et al., Sup., 36 N.Y.S.2d 550; Burgess v. Grooms et ux., 81 A.2d 338 (Municipal Court of Appeals for the Dist. of Columbia 1951); Gannaway v. Lundstrom, 204 S.W.2d 999 (Tex.Civ.App.1947); Kolb v. ......
-
Brannock Associates, Inc. v. Capitol 801 Corp.
...Foundation, 865 F.2d 530 (3rd Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3218, 106 L.Ed.2d 568 (1989); Burgess v. Grooms, 81 A.2d 338, 339 (D.C.Mun.Ct.App.1951). 7 As it has recognized, Brannock can no longer argue that Finard is collaterally estopped from relitigating its liability ......
-
Grunseth v. Marriott Corp., Civ. A. No. 93-1101(GK).
...Postal Service, 530 F.Supp. 872, 890 (D.D.C.1981) (quoting Kirk v. U.S., 451 F.2d 690, 695 (10th Cir.1971)). 5 See Burgess v. Grooms, 81 A.2d 338, 339 (D.C. 1951). 6 See Richardson, 7 Plaintiff concedes that "mutuality of agreement" is an essential element of his claim. See Plaintiff's Oppo......
-
Sullivan v. Heritage Foundation, 12784.
...annual contract. The duration of a contract may be a question of fact when the evidence is conflicting. See, e. g., Burgess v. Grooms, D.C.Mun.App., 81 A.2d 338, 339 (1951). Rather than establishing a factual dispute, however, appellants' pleadings, affidavits and depositions are in agreeme......