Fairbanks-Morse & Company v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 03 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4-6204 |
| Citation | 148 S.W.2d 162,201 Ark. 1114 |
| Parties | FAIRBANKS-MORSE & COMPANY v. HOGAN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Lawrence C Auten, Judge; affirmed.
Affirmed.
Carl F Jaggers, for appellant.
Donham Fulk & Mehaffy, for appellee.
Ben M. Hogan's written proposal of January 4, 1937, to supply all materials and perform all labor necessary in providing a waterworks system for $ 32,417.25 was accepted by the incorporated town of Mammoth Spring, the work to be done according to drawings and specifications referred to in the contract. [1]
A part of the plant was to be a well 300 feet in depth, with certain appurtenances. Dennis D. Dotyn [2] agreed with Hogan to drill the well and supply certain items for $ 4,332. Fairbanks-Morse & Company [3] (October 5, 1938) sued Hogan for $ 1,265.54, alleging Doty was Hogan's subcontractor, and that it had supplied Doty with certain materials, and with money for use in completion of Hogan's contract. [4] Construction of the waterworks plant was a P.W.A. project. The engineer's final approval of work done and materials supplied by Doty showed he was entitled to $ 3,842.
February 21, 1938, Doty admitted that his indebtedness to Fairbanks-Morse & Company was $ 3,491.01 and executed an assignment in which it was stated that he was entitled to receive approximately $ 2,250 from Hogan on the Mammoth Spring job, [5] and that payment should be made to the assignee.
Doty testified he was paid $ 2,131.04 about March 18, 1937, and that a balance of $ 2,419 was due. [6] He further testified that about three weeks after the Mammoth Spring job was completed he did some work for J. A. Gregory at Newark for which he was to receive $ 3,000. An advance of $ 2,100 was made. The item of $ 2,100 was not repaid because Gregory did not settle in full under the $ 3,000 contract. His testimony was that "it was understood" the $ 2,100 was a "loan" to be repaid from money arising from the $ 3,000 obligation; therefore, the balance due was $ 900.
On appeal appellant waived all claims except $ 758.79. [7]
J. A. Gregory testified that the check for $ 2,100 was issued June 21, 1937, to apply on the Mammoth Spring contract. This represented an overpayment of $ 359.04. However, Doty had a balance coming to him on the Newark job, and witness was not concerned over the difference. The letter confirming agreement on the Newark job was signed "Ben M. Hogan, by J. A. Gregory." [8]
Gregory testified that he met Galvin two or three days before the $ 2,100 payment was made to Doty. Gregory says he told Galvin that Doty was asking for payment before it was due under the terms of the contract:-- "Galvin made the statement that if I could see my way clear to help Doty, he wished I would; that Doty was a good man." Continuing his testimony, Gregory stated that he went away and that Doty telephoned again, asking for an advance.
Galvin's testimony was to the effect that as representative of Fairbanks-Morse & Company he attended contract "lettings," and on numerous occasions had asked the successful bidder to employ Doty because Doty bought equipment from Fairbanks-Morse.
There is other testimony relating to conversations between Gregory and Galvin.
In Kotchtitsky v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 161 Ark. 275, 257 S.W. 48, it was held that the principal contractor is liable for labor and materials supplied to a sub-contractor within the general scope of the principal contract.
The trial court in the instant case found that appellant was estopped by the action of Galvin, who suggested that payment be made to Doty. It is argued by appellant, however, that estoppel was not pleaded. The answer alleged that the work done by Doty and materials supplied constituted a joint enterprise between Fairbanks-Morse & Company and Doty, and that appellant had made Doty its agent to receive payments. When appellee introduced evidence which tended to create an estoppel there was no objection, and it cannot be complained of now. [9] Where the plaintiff acquiesced in the method of examining witnesses and did not contend trend of the testimony thus adduced was outside the scope of the pleadings, the answer will be treated as having been amended to conform. [10]
We think there is substantial evidence to sustain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abel of Ark., Inc. v. Richards
...not assert this agreement; however, as heretofore pointed out, this evidence was offered without objection. In Fairbanks-Morse & Company v. Hogan, 201 Ark. 1114, 148 S.W.2d 162, we 'Where the plaintiff acquiesced in the method of examining witnesses and did not contend trend of the testimon......
-
Parker v. Jones
...of the answer may not be challenged on appeal. Athletic Tea Co. v. McCormack, 159 Ark. 405, 252 S.W. 7. In Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Hogan, 201 Ark. 1114, 148 S.W.2d 162, 164, we said: 'When appellee introduced evidence which tended to create an estoppel there was no objection, and it cannot......
- Toler v. Fischer
-
Antrim v. McKelroy
...is not a fatal defect under certain circumstances and especially where equities are involved. In the case of Fairbanks Morse & Company v. Hogan, 201 Ark. 1114, 148 S.W.2d 162, 164, where a similar question was presented, the court said: 'When appellee introduced evidence which tended to cre......