Gillis v. Gillette, 12145.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12145.,12145. |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 7 |
| Parties | GILLIS v. GILLETTE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
C. C. Tanner, Nome, Alaska, for appellant.
Chellis Carpenter, San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Gillis, brought this action in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska to recover from appellees, Gillette and wife, judgment in the sum of $1,746.83 plus interest, costs and attorney's fee, and to enforce said judgment by foreclosure of a labor and material lien which had theretofore been filed against appellees' real property. The $1,746.83 was alleged to represent the difference between the reasonable value ($2,746.83) of labor and materials furnished by Gillis in moving, altering and repairing a house owned by the Gillettes, and a $1,000.00 payment theretofore made by appellees.
Appellees' answer admitted that a purported lien had been filed by appellant and that appellees had paid the $1,000.00 to appellant, and denied other allegations in the complaint. By way of cross complaint appellees alleged that the parties had entered into an agreement whereby appellant was to move, alter and repair appellees' house for the sum of $2,872.28, the work to be completed in October, 1946. Appellant was to furnish the labor and appellees to provide the materials. They further alleged that the house was not moved until November 12, 1946 (after freezing weather) and that certain alterations and repairs were not completed by appellant; that by reason of appellant's delay, failure to complete the work, and negligent performance of work done appellees had sustained damages in the total sum of $2,597.14, whereupon they prayed for judgment in the sum of $724.86. (This latter amount clearly represents the difference between the alleged damages ($2,597.14) and the unpaid amount of the contract price ($1,872.28).)
The court made Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entered judgment thereon. The material Findings, briefly stated, were that the parties had entered into an agreement as alleged in appellees' answer, that appellant had abandoned the work before completion, that as the result of appellant's breaches appellees had sustained various items of damage in the total sum of $817.25 (most of which represented the cost of completing the work), and that appellant had furnished, at the request of appellees, materials to the value of $526.08.
The court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillis v. Gillette
...Cal., for appellee. Before HEALY, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges. BONE, Circuit Judge. This case was before us on a previous appeal, 177 F.2d 7, and was remanded with directions to make and enter further findings indicating: (1) whether appellant Gillis willfully abandoned the work before com......
-
Hunter Douglas Corp. v. Lando Products
...2 Paramount Pest Control Service v. Brewer, 9 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 553, 554; id., 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 564, 565; Gillis v. Gillette, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 7, 8. ...
-
Paramount Pest Control Service v. Brewer
...essential findings supplied by the trial Judge. Hunter v. Scruggs Drug Store, Inc., 4 Cir., 1940, 113 F.2d 971; See, also, Gillis v. Gillette, 9 Cir., 177 F.2d 7. Epitomizing the case now before us, it appears that Paramount, a California corporation, licensed to carry on a pest control bus......