Hartford Mill Co. v. Hartford Tobacco Warehouse Co.

• Decision Date: 01 October 1909
• Citation: 121 S.W. 477
• Parties: HARTFORD MILL CO. v. HARTFORD TOBACCO WAREHOUSE CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

121 S.W. 477

HARTFORD MILL CO. v. HARTFORD TOBACCO WAREHOUSE CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 1, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ohio County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by the Hartford Tobacco Warehouse Company against the Hartford Mill Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

G. B Likens, for appellant.

Heavrin & Woodward, for appellee.

BARKER J.

This action was instituted for the purpose of recovering damages for an alleged breach of the following contract entered into between appellant and appellee:

"Articles of agreement between the Hartford Mill Co. and Hartford Tobacco Warehouse Co., both of Ohio county, Ky. in which the Hartford Mill Co. is to build an addition to their present warehouse in Hartford, of the following dimensions to wit:

"The building is to be the same height, length, and width as the old one and the roof the same shape, and all the floors on a level. The new building is to have a basement story inclosed by a brick wall 1 1/2 brick thick with a fillister two bricks square every ten feet and be six feet six in. in the clear, including the sills.

"The basement floor to be laid with rough lumber on sleepers 4 in. square and the joints to be broken with thin strips. The first floor to be No. 1 common pine; the second floor to be No. 2 common pine; the third floor to be rough lumber not stripped or jointed. The joists of the 1st and 2nd floors to be 2 X10"' and rest on girders 8X10"' and be 16"' apart. Said girders to be supported by posts 8X8"' and 16 feet apart with caps same size and six feet long. The 3rd or top floor to rest on joists 2X8"' and 24"' apart, and to be well supported by posts and girders. The racking to be substantial and be two feet from the wall all around and run cross-wise with the house. The roof is to be roll cap steel of good quality. The studding and rafters to be 2X4"' and 24"' apart. The weather boarding to be bevel pine and to have 2 coats of paint. The basement wall next to the old house is to be 9"' thick and four feet from the pillars of the old house. The building is to have 44 windows with wood shutters same size as old house, 30 glass windows same size as in old house. Black Diamond Cement to be used one foot each way from top of the ground in outside course of brick. A brick flue is to be run in center of the house and necessary work tables to be put in with suitable ratchways. The base of the brick wall is to be 24"', except the 9"' wall and the base of it is to be 18"'. The building is to be 40 ft. wide and 80 ft. long.

"The Hartford Tobacco Warehouse Co. is to pay the Hartford Mill Co. eighteen hundred and fifty dollars for the above described building.

"This Jan. 20th, 1906.

"Warren Lindley,

David Moreland,

A. R. Pirtle,

J. S. Cecil,

"For Hartford Tobacco Warehouse Co.

"J. C. Riley,

For Hartford Mill Co."

In the execution of this contract the appellant company built the warehouse, of the dimensions specified, and the appellee received it and proceeded to fill it with tobacco, having first paid over to the appellant the full sum of the contract price--$1,850. Some minor defects in the building developed at once, and were perhaps remedied by the appellant, or it gave the appellee money with which to remedy them. These are immaterial. But, after the house was full of tobacco, it was found that the timbers were insufficient to hold the weight to which they were subjected, and the appellee claimed that the giving way of the timbers was caused by the fact that they were decayed or of insufficient material and the whole was put together in an unwork-manlike and unskillful manner. Claiming that there had been a breach of the contract, this action was instituted by the appellee, alleging damages in the sum of $568. The appellant replied, setting up the written contract, and alleging that the building had been erected in the manner and with the materials described therein. The answer also pleaded...