Ideal Heating Co. v. Kramer

• Decision Date: 15 March 1905
• Citation: 102 N.W. 840,127 Iowa 137
• Parties: IDEAL HEATING CO. v. KRAMER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

127 Iowa 137

102 N.W. 840

IDEAL HEATING CO.

v.KRAMER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 15, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; A. H. McVey, Judge.

Action in equity to enforce a mechanic's lien. Decree dismissing the petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Ryan, Ryan & Ryan, for appellant.

J. A. McCall, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

The plaintiff company is engaged in the business of plumbing, pipe fitting, and steam heating. In the year 1901 it entered into contracts by which it undertook to do the plumbing and furnish heating apparatus for a certain block or double building owned by the plaintiff for the aggregate price of $1,250. Thereafter the plaintiff further undertook to install certain radiation for steam heating in the defendant's dwelling house, which stood near the block or double building above mentioned, and connect said radiation with the boiler by which said block was heated. The agreed price of this job was $225. The plaintiff claims to have performed all the work aforesaid according to agreement, and that there is an unpaid balance due him, for which he asks judgment, and the establishment of a lien upon the property. The bill of items attached to the petition indicates that defendant has paid plaintiff $1,250, the agreed price of the work done in the block first mentioned, leaving unpaid the price named in the last contract, $225, and certain small items charged as extras, amounting to $18.47. Defendant admits making the contracts sued upon, but says he has paid for all the work which has been done according to the agreement. He further alleges that the work done under the last contract for the purpose of heating his dwelling house was executed in such negligent and unworkmanlike manner as to prove wholly inadequate and useless, and is without any value, and for injuries resulting from this failure he makes a counterclaim of $300. The district court found the plaintiff entitled to recover nothing, but allowed it to remove the radiators, pipes, and other materials placed by it upon the premises under the last contract, on condition that it repair the injury occasioned by the installment and removal of said materials. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant argues that it did not undertake to accomplish any certain or definite results with the apparatus put in the dwelling house, and that, having in fact installed the radiators and pipes called for by the agreement, defendant must be held to pay the contract price. The contract is embraced in certain written proposals accepted by the defendant. The proposals appear to have been written upon a printed form, some parts of which have no apparent meaning in connection with the work actually contemplated. It does, however, specify the radiators and piping to be put in, the connection of the same with the boiler, the quality of the materials to be used, and provides that “all work is to be done in a good and workmanlike manner.” No detailed plans or specifications for the work are given. It also provides that upon completion of the work it shall be promptly inspected by the defendant, and accepted or rejected, so that the workmen, while still on the premises, may at once remedy any defects complained of. A guaranty is given that, if any part of the apparatus show any defects in material within eight years, new parts will be furnished upon application. The title to the property, with right to remove the same, is reserved by the plaintiff, if not paid for according to contract.

Without at this time considering whether defendant may rely upon any implied stipulation or agreement, we have to say that, in our judgment, the plaintiff, in agreeing to do the work “in a good and workmanlike manner,” did undertake to produce definite and certain results. The stipulation means something more than a promise to do a job which shall look well--something more than a good example of pipe fitting. A gristmill which will not grind, a reaper that will not cut grain, a locomotive that will not move when the proper power is applied, can hardly be said to have been constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. Even so; a heating apparatus that will heat nothing but the owner's temper must be said not to fill that condition. If a professional ditcher undertakes to drain a swamp in a good and workmanlike manner, but by a miscalculation makes the outlet of his ditch higher than the surface of the swamp, it will not avail him to say that the trench was evenly dug, and the tile laid with perfect regularity. A good and workmanlike job is one that is done as a skilled workman should do it. Fitzgerald v. La Porte (Ark.) 40 S. W. 261;Smith v. Clark, 58 Mo. 145. The putting in of a steam heating outfit is a...