Gonzales Coll. v. McHugh
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Citation | 21 Tex. 256 |
| Parties | GONZALES COLLEGE AND OTHERS v. FRANCIS MCHUGH. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Want of familiarity with a particular subject in relation to which a witness proposes to testify, is no objection to the admissibility of his testimony, it goes only to its weight. 26 Tex. 147.
Under a contract to build a house for a stipulated price for the whole work, and it be only partly executed by, but is received and used, the undertaker is only entitled to recover what the work done is reasonably worth.
But where work contracted to be done is considerably advanced toward completion, and where there has been no complaint that the work was not done in accordance with the contract, the correct mode of determining the value of the work, is the contract price less what it will take to complete it. 11 Tex. 264.
Appeal from DeWitt. Tried below before Hon. F. Jones.
This was an action brought in Gonzales county (venue changed to DeWitt), by McHugh against Gonzales College, and also against the above named appellants, who contracted as a building committee for the erection of a college building.
McHugh was to complete the building, according to contract and specifications, for $7,250, and to finish the same in twelve months from the date of the contract, was also to give bond in $10,000 for performance on his part.
The building committee were to pay McHugh $500 on the approval of the bond for performance, and $400 per month thereafter until $4,900 was paid (including the $500), provided the work progressed to the satisfaction of the committee. The balance to be secured by a lien or mortgage on the building when completed, in case it was completed to the satisfaction of the committee.
The bond of McHugh was without date, but it was approved by a majority of the committee on the 17th September, 1851.
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦Committee paid September 13, 1851¦$240 00¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------+--+---------¦
¦Committee paid September 20, 1851¦259 00 ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------+--+---------¦
¦Committee paid September 27, 1851¦77 00 ¦--¦$ 576 00 ¦
+---------------------------------+-------+--+---------¦
¦Committee paid October --, 1851 ¦755 00 ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------+--+---------¦
¦Committee paid October 4, 1851 ¦150 00 ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------+--+---------¦
¦Committee paid October 11, 1851 ¦100 00 ¦ ¦ ¦
+---------------------------------+-------+--+---------¦
¦Committee paid October 25, 1851 ¦150 00 ¦--¦1,155 00 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦By November 11, 1851, the committee had paid¦$1,731 00¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
November 11, 1851, committee gave notice that the work was not being done in a satisfactory manner in some particulars.
The work of McHugh was continued, and the payments by the committee, as appears, reached the sum of $4,753.45.
On the 20th September, 1852, the committee, by resolution, declared the contract forfeited by the appellee. He, however, kept possession of the building in its uncompleted condition, his family residing in it until 1854, when appellants took proceedings and had him turned out of the premises.
All the testimony on the trial, for both the appellee and appellants, concurs in establishing the fact that the work was done in a manner to render it almost worthless.
The appellants offered to prove by the depositions of Anderson, Goff and Miller the character and value of the work, etc., on the building, and also by the testimony of Dubois to the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exporters' & Traders' Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Shaw
...in length. In addition to the above authorities we cite the following: Carroll v. Welch, 26 Tex. 147, 148, 149; Gonzales College v. McHugh, 21 Tex. 256, 258, 259; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Richards, 83 Tex. 203, 205, 206, 18 S. W. 611; G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hepner, 83 Tex. 136, 140, 18 ......
-
Freeman v. Shannon Const., Inc.
...and necessary cost of completion over and above the unpaid portion of the contract price. Hillyard v. Crabtree, 11 Tex. 264; Gonzales College v. McHugh, 21 Tex. 256; American Surety Co. of N. Y. v. Lyons, 44 Tex.Civ.App. 150, 97 S.W. 1080; Franks v. Harkness, Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W. 913; Da ......
-
Mo. Pac. R'Y Co. v. Jarrard
...discussed in the opinion, cited: M. P. R'y Co. v. Martin, Tex. Law Rev., vol. 5, p. 611; 1 Wharton on Ev., sec. 510; Gonzales College v. McHugh, 21 Tex. 256; I. & G. N. R'y Co. v. Klaus, Tex. Law Rev., vol. 5, p. 565; 1 Wharton on Ev., sec. 512 and note 10; Clinton v. Howard, 42 Conn. 306, ......
-
Mathes v. Williams, 5060.
...Hillyard v. Crabtree's Adm'r, 11 Tex. 264, 62 Am.Dec. 475; Weis v. Devlin, 67 Tex. 507, 3 S.W. 726, 60 Am. Rep. 38; Gonzales College et al. v. McHugh, 21 Tex. 256, 257. The judgment herein is reformed so as to allow the plaintiff in error a recovery in the sum of $462.85, with interest at 1......