Foshee v. Hand-Enis Realty Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3098,HAND-ENIS,3098 |
| Citation | 237 So.2d 437 |
| Parties | T. J. FOSHEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.REALTY CO., Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
John Makar and Donald Kelly, Natchitoches, for defendants-appellants.
Watson, Brittain & Murchison, By Daniel T. Murchison, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FRUGE , SAVOY, and MILLER, JJ.
This is an action by the plaintiff, T. J. Foshee, d/b/a T. J. Foshee Electrical Service to collect sums allegedly due him under an oral contract between himself and the defendants, Hand-Enis Realty Co., Inc., and Dr. E. A. Hand. The trial court awarded the plaintiff judgment in solido against the defendants in the amount of $1,672.80, from which judgment they have appealed.
In February of 1967, Dr. E. A. Hand was president of Hand-Enis Realty Co., Inc., a closely held corporation owned by Dr. Hand and his immediate family. The Hand-Enis Realty Co., Inc., owned the Natchitoches Geriatrics Hospital, where Dr. Hand practiced medicine. At that time, Dr. Hand requested Mr. Foshee to do some electrical work on the Natchitoches Geriatrics Hospital building. Dr. Hand's request, as reflected by the work order, included the following items:
1. Install T.V. outlet
2. Balance load on panels
3. Heavy circuits to washer and dryer
4. Install generator and tie to emergency panel
5. Install plug in Bath 16 for electric heater
6. Inspection of all electrical work
Dr. Hand asked Mr. Foshee how much the work would cost and Mr. Foshee replied 'It won't cost much, mostly labor' (Tr. 98). That was the extent of the negotiations, according to Dr. Hand. Mr. Foshee, however, contends that Dr. Hand asked him to do whatever was necessary to bring the electrical system up to certain minimum standards which would enable Mr. Foshee to sign a certificate required by the State Fire Marshal's Office (Tr. 39).
The evidence indicates that the work done by Mr. Foshee was needed and that it was worth $1,672.80. Mr. Foshee employed several electricians who worked a total of 158 hours on the hospital job. A record of all materials used on the job and for which the defendants were charged was introduced into evidence by the plaintiff. Mr. J. A. Berry, an electrician testifying for the defendants, said, in essence, that the plaintiff made a reasonable charge for the work he did (Tr. 94, 95, 96).
The defendants' initial contention is that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2277 for proving an oral contract exceeding $500.00. Article 2277 provides 'All agreements relative to movable property, and all contracts for the payment of money, where the value does not exceed five hundred dollars, which are not reduced to writing, may be proved by any other competent evidence; such contracts or agreements, above five hundred dollars in value, must be proved at least by one credible witness, and other corroborating circumstances.'
The testimony of Dr. Hand and Mr. Foshee establishes that the parties entered into a contract. Mr. Foshee's testimony, unlike Dr. Hand's, indicates that the contract was for more than $500.00. This was corroborated by evidence that the work done exceeded $500.00 in value. The one credible witness referred to in Louisiana Civil Code Article 2277 can be one of the parties to the contract. See Ory v. Griffin, 162 So.2d 97 (La.App.1st Cir. 1964); King v. Jarvis, 144 So .2d 616 (La.App.4th Cir. 1962). Mr. Foshee's testimony and the corroborating evidence produced by him meets the standards imposed by Louisiana Civil Code Article 2277 for proving an oral contract in excess of $500.00.
The defendants' second contention is that Dr. Hand did not authorize the work done by Mr. Foshee. As indicated previously, Mr. Foshee's testimony is otherwise. The trial court did not favor us with written reasons for judgment indicating how it evaluated Mr. Foshee's or Dr. Hand's testimony. However, we assume that it believed that version of the testimony which conforms with its decision. Karisny v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 215 So.2d 201 (La.App .3d Cir. 1968). When Dr. Hand told Mr. Foshee to do whatever was necessary to enable him to sign the certificate required by the state fire marshal, he authorized Mr. Foshee to do the work that he did. If Dr. Hand intended to authorize only $300.00 worth of work, he should have made Mr. Foshee aware of this limitation.
Dr. Hand did attempt to ascertain the cost of the initial six items that he requested. Mr. Foshee merely told him it would not be much, mostly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intercontinental Engineering-Manufacturing Corp. v. C. F. Bean Corp.
...Kaplan, 170 La. 763, 129 So. 156 (1930); Williams v. O'Bryan, 257 So.2d 174, 175-76 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1972); Foshee v. Hand-Enis Realty Co., 237 So.2d 437, 440 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1970); Bush v. Saucier, 197 So.2d 907, 908 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1967); Three Rivers Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Gibson, 181......
-
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig.
...decisions leave one issue to be addressed here-whether agency principles relieve movers of liability. As stated in Foshee v. Hand-Enis Realty Co., 237 So.2d 437(La. App. 1970):An agent who contracts for a principal without disclosing that fact is personally liable to the party with whom he ......
-
Frank's Door & Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. Double H. Const. Co., Inc.
...without disclosing the identity of his principal. Williams v. O'Bryan, 257 So.2d 174 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1972); Foshee v. Hand-Enis Realty Co., 237 So.2d 437 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1970). The agent has the burden of proving that he disclosed this agency status and the identity of his principal if he......
-
Remn Const. Corp. v. Keating
...well settled that a party to the lawsuit may serve as his own 'credible witness' for purpose of this article. Foshee v. Hand-Enis Realty Co., 237 So.2d 437 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1970). Moreover, although he still must show other circumstances which corroborate his claim, this means only general ......