Duhamel v. Port Angeles Stone Co.
Decision Date | 24 June 1910 |
Citation | 109 P. 597,59 Wash. 171 |
Parties | DUHAMEL et al. v. PORT ANGELES STONE CO. et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.
Action by E. J. Duhamel and another, partners doing business as Megrath & Duhamel, against the Port Angeles Stone Company and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Million & Houser, for appellants.
F. A Noble and McClure & McClure, for respondents.
By this action the plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants damages claimed to have resulted from a failure of the Port Angeles Stone Company to furnish stone for the construction of the United States Post Office building in Seattle, in compliance with a contract between the Port Angeles Stone Company and plaintiffs, the latter having the contract for the construction of the building for the United States. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and resulted in findings and judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs have appealed.
The facts found by the learned trial court, so far as we deem it necessary to notice them, are, in substance, the following The contract here involved, among other things, provides On * * *'March 9, 1905, in pursuance of the terms of this contract, the Port Angeles Stone Company gave to appellants a bond securing the faithful performance of the contract with the respondent United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety thereon. Thereafter the United States consented to the change in the specifications of the building contract, by which Port Angeles stone was substituted for Chuckanut stone, and on April 5, 1905, appellants duly notified the Port Angeles Stone Company of such change, the contract thereby becoming effective. Immediately thereafter, and until August 4, 1905, the Port Angeles Stone Company kept a large force of men continuously at work at its quarry opening and developing the same. In order that the Port Angeles Stone Company might from time to time comply with the contract, it was necessary that the appellants should furnish it with orders specifying the quantities of stone required and the dimensions thereof. The appellants did not require of the Port Angeles Stone Company the shipment or delivery of any stone as provided by the terms of the contract. On August 1, 1905, appellants entered into a contract with the Chuckanut Stone Company, by which they agreed to purchase from that company stone to be used in the construction of the building providing the substitution of Chuckanut stone for Port Angeles stone would be consented to by the United States. This change was consented to by the United States and the building finally constructed with that stone. The appellants kept the Port Angeles Stone Company in ignorance of their negotiations with the Chuckanut Stone Company, and encouraged the Port Angeles Stone Company to believe that its stone would be used in the construction of the building if there was a reasonable prospect that its quarry could supply stone of sufficient quality and quantity therefor, and there is no satisfactory proof that there was not such reasonable prospect. The Port Angeles Stone Company did not refuse to perform any of the obligations imposed upon it by the terms of the contract. On August 4, 1905, appellants served upon the Port Angeles Stone Company a written notice claiming it was in default under the contract, and that it had failed to deliver stone as agreed, also notifying it 'that, because of said default, we will be compelled to purchase stone for the building elsewhere; any you are further notified that, because of the facts aforesaid, we hereby terminate said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Terminal Railway Co.
...States v. Armour & Co., 142 Fed. 802; Federal Lead Co. v. Swyers, 161 Fed. 687; People v. Railroad Co., 76 Cal. 29; Duhamel v. Stone Co., 59 Wash. 171, 109 Pac. 597; Kennedy v. Falde, 4 Dak. 319; Lippencott v. Ridgeway, 11 N.J. Eq. 526. (d) Ordinance 41448 purports to be the exercise of leg......
-
Kansas City v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
......v. Swyers, 161 F. 687; People. v. Railroad Co., 76 Cal. 29; Duhamel v. Stone. Co., 59 Wash. 171, 109 P. 597; Kennedy v. Falde, 4 Dak. ......
-
General Telephone Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. City of Bothell
...& Light Co., 235 Ark. 277, 359 S.W.2d 441 (1962).5 This court found "request" synonymous with "require" in Duhamel v. Port Angeles Stone Co., 59 Wash. 171, 176-77, 109 P. 597 (1910). See also Roget's International Thesaurus § 751.4, at 501 (3d ed.1962).6 Tukwila v. Seattle, 68 Wash.2d 611, ......
-
Bolt v. Caldwell
...in any such list within thirty days after such list has been furnished to plaintiff. Leslie v. Mining Co., 110 Mo. 31; Duhamel v. Stone Co., 59 Wash. 171; Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 102; United States v. Dimmick, 112 F. 350; People v. Railroad, 76 Cal. 29; Brewster v. Brewster, 52 N.H. 52; Bowerman......