Cunningham & Patchen v. Delohery Hat Co.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PRENTICE, J.
• Citation: Cunningham & Patchen v. Delohery Hat Co., 135 Am.St.Rep. 290, 74 A. 881, 82 Conn. 592 (Conn. 1909)
• Decision Date: 17 December 1909
• Parties: CUNNINGHAM & PATCHEN v. DELOHERY HAT CO.

74 A. 881

82 Conn. 592

CUNNINGHAM & PATCHEN

v. DELOHERY HAT CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 17, 1909.

Appeal from City Court of Danbury; John R. Booth, Judge.

Action by Cunningham & Patchen against the Delohery Hat Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. No error.

James E. Walsh and William H. Cable, for appellant. Charles W. Murphy, for appellees.

PRENTICE, J. The plaintiffs brought their action upon the common counts to recover for work and labor done and materials furnished as set out in their bill of particulars. The defendant pleaded a general denial, a special defense, and a tender. The special defense alleged that the defendant, acting through its president, entered into a contract with the plaintiffs for the performance of the work in the execution of which the labor and materials covered by the bill of particulars were performed and furnished; that in this contract the sum to be paid therefor was agreed upon, and that this sum was considerably less than the amount claimed to be recovered as the reasonable value thereof. The plaintiffs admitted that the work was done and materials furnished under a contract so made, but denied that the price was agreed upon. The court found the existence of this contract in so far as the doing of the work and furnishing of the materials was concerned, but that there was no agreement as to price other than that the plaintiffs should "do the work by the day and treat the defendant right." Judgment was thereupon rendered for the amount of the bill of particulars. Upon the trial, the plaintiffs for the purpose of proving that the person with whom, as representing the defendants, the contract was made, was authorized to act for the defendants, called that person, who testified, against objection, that he was the president of the defendant corporation, and that he had authority to act for it in the premises.

The error upon which the defendant chiefly relies is that the court made its finding of the existence of a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, pursuant to which the work in question was executed, without sanction in evidence or otherwise, for the reasons (1) that there was no proof legally presented that the person claimed to have represented the defendant in the matter of such contract had authority to represent it; and (2) that the allegation of the existence of such a contract, contained in the special defense, did not justify the court in accepting that fact as a fact in the case without proof on account of the presence of the general denial. The plaintiffs were under no obligation to present proof that the work and materials for which recovery was sought were done and furnished pursuant to an...