Hagan v. Knudson
| Decision Date | 01 July 1919 |
| Parties | HAGAN et al. v. KNUDSON et al. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
For the partial failure to perform a building contract, resulting in some loss of rents, the damages must be proximate and reasonable.
Appeal from District Court, Ward County; K. E. Leighton, Judge.
Action by Thomas E. Hagan and another against C. M. Knudson and J. H. Jensen, copartners doing business as the Western Building Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Modified.Greene & Stenerson, of Minot (Dudley L. Nash, of Minot, of counsel), for appellants.
McGee & Goss, of Minot, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment against defendants for $3,175 damages for the failure to erect a building in accordance with a written agreement. There is no statement of the case and no evidence before the court. Hence the appeal must be decided on the judgment roll.
As it appears, on October 2, 1916, the parties made a written agreement for the construction of a store building on a lot in Minot, the same to be under the directions of Stacy Judd, as architect, acting as agent for the owners. The plaintiffs agreed to pay for work and material $6,600, and defendants agreed to complete the building by December 1, 1916, the time to be extended in case of a general strike, alterations, fire, or unusual action of the elements. On December 12, 1916, there was made a supplementary contract reciting that the building was in course of construction and could not be completed until the spring of 1917, and that as constructed the building shall and may be used by J. B. Reed, as a tenant of the plaintiffs, commencing January 1, 1917, then in February, 1917, the plaintiffs served on defendants a written notice whereby they elected to rescind and cancel the building contract, and demanded that defendants desist from and discontinue any further work upon or the taking of any steps toward the completion of the building. Then on February 9, 1917, the plaintiffs commenced this action to rescind the contract and to recover damages for nonperformance of the same. Then on March 8, 1917, defendants commenced an action to recover the reasonable value of the services and materials furnished and used in the construction of the building. The defendants had been paid $1,500, and in the last-mentioned action the court found the facts thus:
+-------------------------------------------------------+
¦Value of completed building ¦$6,600 00¦
+---------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦Expense to complete it ¦1,489 00 ¦
+---------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦Total value of defendants' labor and material¦$5,111 00¦
+---------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦By cash payment ¦1,500 00 ¦
+---------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦Balance due defendants for labor and material¦$3,611 00¦
+-------------------------------------------------------+
And it was by the court adjudged that defendants recover from the plaintiffs $3,611, with interest, as a balance due on the reasonable value of the labor and materials.
In this action the court found that by reason of defendants' failure to do the work according to the plans and specifications plaintiffs had sustained damages to the amount of $325, and that by reason of defendants' failure to complete the building on time the plaintiffs had lost the rent of the building at $150 a month from January 1, 1917, to August 1, 1918, amounting to $2,850, which, with the special damages, $325, made the total $3,175, for which judgment was given against the defendants. The court also found that with reasonable diligence the work of completing the building could have been done by June 1, 1917. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial