Cook v. Littlefield

• Decision Date: 16 December 1903
• Citation: 98 Me. 299,56 A. 899
• Parties: COOK v. LITTLEFIELD.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

56 A. 899

98 Me. 299

COOK

v. LITTLEFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 16, 1903.

(Official.)

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.

Action by Winslow H. Cook against Joseph W. Littlefleld. Verdict for defendant Exceptions by plaintiff. Overruled.

Assumpsit on account annexed and money counts to recover for labor and materials furnished to the defendant by the plaintiff in the erection of a set of buildings. There was a written contract, referring to a plan, but not designating the plan by any designating mark. At the trial of the case the plaintiff offered one plan in two parts, which he claimed as the one referred to in the contract; and the defendant offered a different plan, which he claimed to be the one referred to.

It was claimed by the plaintiff that, according to the plan offered by him as the true one, certain work done by him was extra, for which be should recover. And, on the other hand, the defendant insisted that the plan offered by him was the true one, and that according to this plan the several items claimed as extras by the plaintiff were included in the contract, and that the plaintiff should not be allowed for them as extras.

The defendant further claimed that under the plan offered by him certain work required by said plan was left undone by the plaintiff, and was afterwards done by the defendant at his own expense, for which he claimed allowance as against the plaintiff's demand.

The verdict was for the defendant, and the plaintiff took exceptions to the admission of certain testimony introduced by the defendant.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and WHITEHOUSE, STROUT SAVAGE, and SPEAR, JJ.

S. M. Farnum, Jr., H. W. Oakes, J. A. Pulslfer, and F. E. Ludden, for plaintiff.

H. E. Coolidge and W. H. Newell, for defendant.

STROUT, J. Exceptions to the admission of certain testimony.

Plaintiff contracted with defendant to build a set of buildings for him. The contract was reduced to writing, but from it it is impossible to ascertain whether the house was to be one or more stories, nor how many, or what size, the rooms were to be, nor the details of finish. It referred to a plan, which thereby became a part of the contract, and, if the two would clearly show how the contract was to be executed, parol proof of previous talk or agreement would be inadmissible. The written contract and plan would govern. But there was a dispute as to the plan. The plaintiff offered one, and the defendant another and different one. It was for the Jury to say which was the plan referred to in the contract. The Jury apparently adopted the plan offered by the defendant. Even that plan fails to show in detail all that should be done, or was necessary to be done, to complete the house and barn. It is evident that the parties contemplated something more than is disclosed by the written contract and the plan. In this condition of the evidence, defendant was allowed to show by the testimony of Nellie Littlefleld as follows:

"Q. What, if any, difference was there to be between the rooms of the upper and lower stories, if you know?

"A. The difference in the upper story was simply that there was to be no bathroom up stairs. The rooms upstairs were to be the same as the rooms downstairs, except the room over my dining room was to be made for a kitchen, and the room over the kitchen upstairs was to be for a sleeping room."

It does not appear by...