Casey & Hurley v. MacFarlane Bros. Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1910 |
| Citation | 83 Conn. 442,76 A. 515 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CASEY & HURLEY v. MacFARLANE BROS. MFG. CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.
Action by Casey & Hurley against the MacFaiiane Bros. Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Edward K. Nicholson, for appellant .
Phelan & Phelan, for appellees.
This action was brought to recover for extra work and materials alleged to have been furnished and rendered in connection with the erection of a certain factory building for the defendant: The only question presented by the appeal is whether the court erred in holding that the furnishing and laying of certain brick by the plaintiffs was an "extra" for which the defendant was liable to pay; the defendant contending that this alleged extra work was included in the contract between the parties, and that the plaintiffs could not recover, because of the provisions of article 3 of this contract, which provides that "no alterations shall be made in the work except upon written order of the architects, the amount to be paid by the owner or allowed by the contractor by virtue of such alterations to be stated in said order." The superior court has found that these items were extra, and were furnished at the request of the defendant.
To render the person or party for whom services are performed liable therefor as a debtor under an implied promise that they should be duly recompensed in money, it is essential to show that they were rendered under such circumstances as make it fairly presumable that the party allowing them to be rendered and receiving the benefit to be derived from them expected, or at least ought to have expected, that they were to be paid for. Such a presumption arises in reference to any species of work, labor, or employment which is usually and commonly the subject of hire and reward and to be paid for whether any specific bargain is or is not made concerning it. The plaintiffs have shown the facts necessary to enable them to avail themselves of that principle in support of their claim. Mahoney v. Hartford Investment Co., 82 Conn. 280, 286, 73 Atl. 766.
Where the parties deviate from the original plan agreed upon, and the terms of the original contract do not appear to be applicable to the new work, it being beyond what was originally contemplated by the parties, it is undoubtedly to be regarded and treated as work wholly extra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Proctor
...Id. ; see also Charter Oak Estates, Inc. v. Kearney , 160 Conn. 522, 531–32, 280 A.2d 885 (1971) ; Casey & Hurley v. McFarlane Bros. Co. , 83 Conn. 442, 443, 76 A. 515 (1910) ; Weinhouse v. Cronin , 68 Conn. 250, 253, 36 A. 45 (1896). It is of particular relevance in this case that "[t]he q......
-
B. F. & C. M. Davis Co. v. W. E. Callaghan Const. Co.
...134 U. S. 260, 10 S. Ct. 730, 33 L. Ed. 934; Wood v. Fort Wayne, 119 U. S. 312, 7 S. Ct. 219, 30 L. Ed. 416; Casey & Hurley v. McFarlane Brothers Mfg. Co., 83 Conn. 442, 76 A. 515; City of Galveston v. Devlin, 84 Tex. 324, 19 S. W. 395; Smith v. Bruyere (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 813; Hotte......
-
State v. Avcollie
...737 (1928); Brown v. New Haven Taxi Cab Co., 92 Conn. 252, 255-56, 102 A. 573 (1917). Furthermore, it was held in Casey v. McFarlane Bros. Co., 83 Conn. 442, 76 A. 515 (1910), that the trial court need not have a motion before it as a prerequisite to setting a verdict aside if one is eventu......
-
Walter Kidde Constructors, Inc. v. State, 210983
...that required by the plans and specifications and the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs on those two claims. Casey v. McFarlane Bros. Co., 83 Conn. 442, 76 A. 515 (1910). No evidence was submitted to prove the allegations pleaded in counts 5 through 10 and they were not In counts 11 and......