Jones v. Vestry of Trinity Parish

• Decision Date: 01 January 1883
• Citation: 19 F. 59
• Parties: JONES v. VESTRY OF TRINITY PARISH.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

19 F. 59

JONES v. VESTRY OF TRINITY PARISH.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. North Carolina.

November Term, 1883

J. H Merrimon, for plaintiff.

McLoud Davidson & Jones, for defendants.

DICK J., (charging jury.)

If the terms of the contract declared upon were in writing, or were admitted, or undisputed in the pleadings, it would be the duty of the court to construe them, and declare the rights and liabilities arising therefrom. As the contract was verbal, and the parties dispute about the terms of the agreement, it is your duty to ascertain those terms from the evidence, and apply the principles of law announced by the court to the facts proved. For the purpose of assisting you in performing such duty I will first refer briefly to some circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made, and to certain facts established by the pleadings or by uncontroverted evidence. A jury in ascertaining the terms of a contract, and a court in construing their meaning, clearly have the right to consider the language employed, and also the subject-matter and the surrounding circumstances, so as to ascertain as nearly as possible the intention of the parties. The vestry of Trinity parish desired to build a new edifice, which would afford more suitable accommodation for the members of the church and other citizens. For this purpose the vestry had collected about $2,500 in cash, and had obtained about $1,000 in reliable subscriptions. With this cash fund and subscription list, and confidently relying upon the liberality of the members of the parish and other citizens of the community the vestry determined to commence the erection of the church edifice. They applied to Prof. Babcock, of Ithaca, New York an experienced, skillful, and accomplished architect, to furnish appropriate plans and specifications for the building, suitable to the convenience and wishes of the congregation, and within the limits of the means accumulated, and such as could be reasonably expected to be realized from future donations. Under these circumstances, the plans and specifications were prepared and forwarded by the architect, who also recommended Mr. Richardson, of Ithaca, New York, as an experienced and skillful contractor and builder. After some correspondence, Mr.

Richardson came to Asherville, and being made acquainted with the views and wishes of the vestry and other surroundings, he offered to furnish material, and to construct the nave and transept of the edifice according to the plans and specifications, for the sum of $3,500. Upon further consideration, he offered to build the chancel and tower for an additional thousand dollars. These offers were not accepted at the time. In a few months afterwards the vestry determined to accept the offers; but Mr. Richardson declined, as he was then engaged in other work, and the price of labor had greatly advanced. The vestry then concluded to commence the work under the superintendence of a building committee. Mr. King, of Raleigh, an experienced and skillful builder, was employed to have immediate charge of the work, and he made some preparation for the undertaking, but he soon became sick and died. About this time the plaintiff came to Asherville, and had several conferences with the building committee and with other members of the vestry, and engaged with them to superintend the erection of the church edifice according to the plans and specifications furnished by the architect. In the course of his employment he was to procure skilled workmen, and direct them in their labor; he was to make contracts for the delivery of suitable materials for building; he was to pay wages and for materials with the funds placed in his hands by the vestry, and keep and render proper weekly accounts of such transactions, and for his services he was to receive $125 per month.

There is no evidence directly showing that any specific time for the continuance of such employment was expressly agreed upon, and there is now a difference in the understanding of the parties upon this question. As a general rule, in an employment at monthly wages, without any definite time as to the continuance of service, either party may terminate the contract at the end of a current month. This rule will not apply when it appears from the language and other terms of the contracts, the nature of the services, and the surrounding circumstances, that the parties evidently intended that the employment should continue until the accomplishment of a definite object. In this case the object of the parties to the contract was the erection of a building according to certain plans and specifications. The plaintiff represented himself as having a long and large experience in such business, and had thus fully qualified himself for the employment, and the defendants were desirous of procuring the services of a prompt, faithful, and skillful superintendent, who would, as speedily as possible, erect the edifice designed by the architect. You can consider the evidence as to all the facts and circumstances which attended and induced the making of the contract, in forming your conclusion as to the mutual intent of the parties as to the time of service which was to be rendered by the plaintiff. If you should find that the parties contemplated the continuance of the employment of the plaintiff for the entire time necessary for the completion of the edifice, and that such was their mutual understanding of the agreement, then you will proceed to inquire whether the defendants had sufficient legal excuse for his discharge before the work was finished. It is conceded that the plaintiff was prompt and diligent in business, and rendered correct accounts for money expended for materials and labor.

It is insisted by the defendants that, before the contract was entered into with the plaintiff, he made representations as to the probable cost of the building, which were reasonably relied on, and were a material inducement to his employment; and that those representations were false and fraudulent, and caused much injury and loss. You have heard the evidence upon this subject, and if you find that the allegation is sustained, then I instruct you that such a fraud was sufficient legal excuse for his dismissal from service.

It is further insisted on the part of the defendants that the plaintiff was not competent in scientific and mechanical knowledge and skill to construct the building in accordance with the plans and specifications furnished by the architect. Upon this question of competency you have heard the depositions...