Hoglund v. Sortedahl
| Decision Date | 21 June 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,112 - (43) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 408,101 Minn. 359 |
| Parties | JOHN O. HOGLUND and Others v. M. O. SORTEDAHL and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Red Lake county to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The case was tried before Watts, J., who struck out the lien statement. The issues were tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. From an order denying a motion to vacate the verdict and to grant a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
Substantial Performance of Contract.
The doctrine of substantial performance of a building or other contract, in which of necessity the owner must retain the benefit of the contract so far as it has been executed, does not apply when the variations from the terms of that contract are so substantial that an allowance out of the contract price for damage for deviations would not give the owner substantially what he contracted for.
Evidence.
In this case payments had been made to the extent of about three-fourths of the contract price. Suit was brought for the remainder. The jury, after viewing the premises, found for the defendant. The architect testified to substantial compliance. Defendants showed many deviations from contract which, construed together with proof that there was a crack in the wall and that other parts of the building were out of plumb, are held to have justified the trial court in refusing to set aside the verdict.
L. E Gossman, H. L. Gaylord, John Lind and A. Ueland, for appellants.
Germo & Farley, for respondents.
This was an action brought to foreclose a mechanic's lien filed by the plaintiffs and appellants upon premises owned by defendants and respondents. The contract price was $4,125. The payments claimed by defendants amounted to $3,182.19. The amount plaintiff sought to recover was $942.81, together with $25 to $40 worth of extra work. The court struck the lien statement out because of defects, and tried the issues to a jury. It submitted to the jury the questions of substantial compliance, of claims for extra work, and of the counterclaims of the defendants, including damages for a failure to construct the building in accordance with the contract, and damages for failure to complete at the time specified by contract, determined by the reasonable rental value for the period. The jury returned a verdict for defendants. From an order denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial this appeal was taken.
The general principles applicable to the controversy are well settled. The original rule, requiring proof of exact and literal performance of all the terms and conditions of a contract as a condition precedent to the right of recovery by the contractor, has been largely relaxed by the decisions of this court in accordance with the general trend of authority. The owner is secured substantial justice if he takes the building as it is constructed, in reasonable conformity with the plans and specifications, and is awarded damages for the decrease in its value due to failure to absolutely perform contract requirements. It would be intolerable injustice to allow him to retain without pay what the contractor has done for his benefit. The doctrine of substantial performance of a building or other contract, in which, of necessity, the owner of the structure must retain the benefits of the contract so far as it has been executed, does not, however, apply where the variations from the terms of the contract are so substantial that an allowance out of the contract price of damages for the deviations would not give the owner essentially what he contracted for. Anderson v. Pringle, 79 Minn. 433, 82 N.W. 682. And see Leeds v. Little, 42 Minn. 414, 44 N.W. 309; Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357, 45 N.W. 845, 9 L.R.A. 52; Cornish, C. & G. Co. v. Antrim Co-operative Dairy Assn., 82 Minn. 215, 84 N.W. 724...
To continue reading
Request your trial