Carlson v. Maughmer, 53499

• Citation: 168 N.W.2d 802
• Decision Date: 10 June 1969
• Docket Number: No. 53499,53499
• Parties: Carl H. CARLSON and Mack Hyndman, d/b/a Carlson-Hyndman Construction Company, Appellants, v. Norman E. MAUGHMER and Bette T. Maughmer, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 802

168 N.W.2d 802

Carl H. CARLSON and Mack Hyndman, d/b/a Carlson-Hyndman Construction Company, Appellants, v. Norman E. MAUGHMER and Bette T. Maughmer, Appellees.

No. 53499.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 10, 1969.

Pendleton & Pendleton, Storm Lake, and Maher, Meloy & Hankens, Cherokee, for appellants.

Herrick, Ary & Cook, Cherokee, for appellees.

GARFIELD, Chief Justice.

This is an action in equity by Carlson and Hyndman, carpenters, to establish and foreclose a mechanic's lien for $3343.11 against a dwelling they built under an oral contract for defendants Maughmer and wife in Cherokee. The principal controversy is whether it was agreed at the outset the total cost of the home exclusive of the lot would not exceed $24,326.96, the figure plaintiffs submitted to defendants as the cost. (Counsel and witnesses frequently referred to the figure as $24,000.00.)

Plaintiffs maintain the above amount was merely an estimate, not a firm bid which would not be exceeded. The trial court held, however, as defendants contend, plaintiffs agreed the cost would not exceed the named amount and did not adhere to the agreement. Relief was denied and plaintiffs have appealed.

The petition alleges plaintiffs and defendants entered into an oral agreement under which the former would furnish materials and labor for construction of the dwelling and defendants agreed to pay therefor; plaintiffs complied with their part of the agreement and furnished the materials and labor shown on the itemized statement attached to the petition and their affidavit claiming a mechanic's lien; 'they were furnished at the respective prices shown on the statement and said prices are the reasonable prices and values thereof.'

Defendants' answer admits plaintiffs have furnished the agreed services and have filed a verified statement of their demand but denies the accuracy thereof; alleges plaintiffs have been paid in full and, in some detail, that they agreed the total cost would not exceed the $24,000 and they claimed no additional sum until after the dwelling was completed.

I. It is clear the vital questions on this appeal are factual. Before briefly reviewing the evidence on the questions, we may observe plaintiffs appear to have proceeded on the theory there was an express oral agreement except as to the amount defendants were obligated to pay for construction of the dwelling.

The rules of law plaintiffs seek to invoke are stated in Sitzler v. Peck, Iowa, 162 N.W.2d 449, 451, decided more than nine months after the trial court's decision here. We quote from the cited opinion:

'I. It is well settled that there cannot be an express contract and an implied one relating to the same subject matter and covering All its terms. Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, 237 Iowa 877, 887, 24 N.W.2d 316, 321; Lautenbach v. Meredith, 240 Iowa 166, 168, 35 N.W.2d 870, 871.

'We have held many times that one who pleads an express oral contract alone cannot ordinarily recover upon an implied contract or quantum meruit. Guldberg v. Greenfield, 259 Iowa 873, 878, 146 N.W.2d 298, 301, and citations; In re Estate of Hill, 230 Iowa 189, 200, 297 N.W. 278, 283; Hunt v. Tuttle, 125 Iowa 676, 101 N.W. 509.

'However, it is equally well settled that there may be an implied contract on a point not covered by an express one. Lautenbach v. Meredith, supra; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra; In re Estate of Hill, supra.

'It often happens that there is an express contract as to the employment, but no agreement as to the amount of compensation, in which case the law implies a promise to pay reasonable compensation. In re Estate of Oldfield, 158 Iowa 98, 138 N.W. 846; Scott v. Wilson, 185 Iowa 464, 468, 170 N.W. 761, 762. Also see Finkle v. Finkle, 239 Iowa 783, 32 N.W.2d 807.'

Although the petition alleges, as previously stated, the materials and labor 'were furnished at the respective prices shown on the statement' for the lien, we will assume in plaintiffs' favor it sufficiently invokes the doctrine of implied contract that defendants would pay the reasonable value thereof, since there is added to the quoted language the statement 'said prices are the reasonable prices and values thereof.'

In any event, plaintiffs had the burden to prove the contract declared upon by them. Lautenbach v. Meredith, supra 240 Iowa 168, 170, 35 N.W.2d 870, 871 and citations. See also Rule 344(f), par. 5, Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs tell us the cited case is quite similar to the present one. However, we do not regard the question as to where the burden of proof lay as vital on this appeal.

II. While our review in this equity case is de novo, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, we give weight to the fact findings of the trial court but are not bound by them. Rule 344(f), par. 7, R.C.P. If we are to observe this rule here we are not justified in reversing the trial court.

III. In the fall of 1965 defendants were newcomers to Cherokee. They bought a lot there for $4500 on which they desired to build a home. Mr. Maughmer arranged for a loan of $24,000 from a savings and loan association in Storm Lake (a little more than 20 miles from Cherokee). Mrs. Maughmer had obtained a set of plans from a Kansas City newspaper and roughly modified them to suit her. Defendants submitted these plans to plaintiffs who reported they were not sufficiently detailed for them to bid on and the house shown by them could not be built for less than $27,000 to $28,000. Defendants informed plaintiffs they didn't have 'that kind of money to put into a house' and they'd have to stay within their limits of around $24,000.

Plaintiffs then asked and defendants told them what they wanted in their home; plaintiffs also asked and defendants consented that the former draw plans of a house they thought they could build for $24,000; plaintiffs submitted plans drawn by them which defendants approved; plaintiffs...