Independent School Dist. of Centerville v. Swearngin

• Citation: 94 N.W. 206,119 Iowa 702
• Parties: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CENTERVILLE, IOWA, Appellant, v. GEORGE W. SWEARNGIN et, al
• Decision Date: 08 April 1903
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

94 N.W. 206

119 Iowa 702

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CENTERVILLE, IOWA, Appellant, v. GEORGE W. SWEARNGIN et, al

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 8, 1903

Appeal from Appanoose District Court.--HON. F. W. EICHELBERGER Judge.

ACTION to recover damages for a breach of contract. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Mabry & Payne for appellant.

C. F Howell and C. H. Elgin for appellees.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant George W. Swearngin entered into a contract whereby Swearngin agreed to paper the walls and ceilings of certain rooms in the plaintiff's school building, according to the following specifications: "All cracks to be pointed and stains to be shellaced, walls to be washed or sized with good, strong glue, as necessary to insure that paper will remain fast to the wall:" The contract also provided for putting two coats of paint on the inside woodwork, and that all work should be done in a good and workmanlike manner. In the admission of testimony, and in the instructions given on its own motion, the court construed the clause of the contract relating to the papering as requiring the defendant to do a good and workmanlike job only, while the plaintiff contends that this clause of the contract bound the defendant to wash or size the rooms so that the paper would remain fast thereon, and instructions presenting this theory were asked and refused. The instructions given are not here for review, and we shall specifically consider only those asked and refused. Such consideration will, however, require a construction of the language of the contract, and this will establish the rule for the guidance of the court on a retrial of the case.

We think the court properly held that the contract did not bind the defendant to so treat the walls as that the paper would remain fast. The language used does not in itself constitute a warranty of that kind; nor do we think that it can be implied therefrom. If it had been the intention of the parties to provide such a warranty, it hardly seems possible that language so inapt for the purpose would have been used and all that we think may be justly claimed for it is that it required the defendant to adopt and use whichever of the two methods would in fact be most likely to insure the desired result. Nor was there sufficient evidence before the court to...