Lapenta v. Lettteri

• Decision Date: 28 November 1899
• Citation: 44 A. 730,72 Conn. 377
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LAPENTA v. LETTTERI et al.

44 A. 730

72 Conn. 377

LAPENTA

v. LETTTERI et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 28, 1899.

Appeal from court of common pleas, Hartford county; William S. Case, Judge.

Interpleader by Bocco Lapenta against John Lettieri, Leonardo Aspromonte, and Angelo Conti, respecting the title to a balance due from the plaintiff on a building contract. From a judgment directing payment of the fund to defendant Conti, the defendant Aspromonte appeals. Reversed.

The finding stated the following facts: On August 31, 1897, the defendant Lettieri signed a contract with the plaintiff to build a brick block for him. The work was begun September 6, and duly finished December 20, 1897. On the date of the contract, and before work was begun, Lettieri made an oral agreement with the defendant Aspromonte, a mason, which was afterwards put in writing and signed by them on October 18th, as follows: "I, John Lettieri, agree to take Leonardo Aspromonte as my partner in a contract that I have taken from Rocco Lapenta to construct a six-tenement building at No. 12 North street. And it is understood that said Aspromonte shall stand with his share of losses, as well as gains. And it is further understood that said Aspromonte is to have charge of all mason and plastering work, while John Lettieri takes charge of all carpenter finish work and odd jobs. And John Lettieri shall not receive nor dispense money without the presence of said Aspromonte. John Lettieri. Leonardo Aspromonte. Rocco Lapenta, Prospero Defona, Witness." The plaintiff witnessed the signing of this agreement, but was no party to it, nor was his assent or agreement to it for any purpose ever asked or given. Aspromonte commenced work on said buildings with Lettieri on the 6th day of September, 1897, and continued until the 20th day of December, 1897. During this period the plaintiff made certain payments under his contract with Lettieri, and receipts therefor were given to the plaintiff, signed by Lettieri and also by Aspromonte. During all this period Aspromonte failed to fulfill the terms of his agreement with Lettieri, in that, although repeatedly urged by Lettieri to meet and contribute his (Aspromonte's) share of the expenses which fell to the contractor under said original contract with the plaintiff, he refused or was unable to do so, and never in fact did so do. Lettieri informed Aspromonte that unless he (Aspromonte) contributed, when the same was called for and became necessary, an equal amount with Lettieri to said expenses, he (Lettieri) would consider their agreement at an end, and would rescind it, and would pay Aspromonte the reasonable value of his services for such time as Aspromonte was actually at work on said buildings. Aspromonte's employment upon said buildings was as a head mason, or foreman of the masons and plasterers there at work. The only advances of money which he claims to have made on account of said work are payments upon the wages of masons and plasterers under his immediate employ and control, amounting to about $136. This sum was so paid by him for the services named, but it comprised only a part of the wages actually earned by and paid to the masons and plasters so employed. Near the time when work on said buildings was completed, it became necessary for Lettieri to raise a considerable sum of money (about $600) for claims against him, and for materials incidental to the work in hand. He demanded of Aspromonte the sum of $300, as Aspromonte's share of said sum to be raised; but Aspromonte again declined or was unable to contribute any part of the necessary sum, whereupon Lettieri, having first notified Aspromonte of his intention, and given him an opportunity to make good his agreement, abandoned and rescinded the agreement previously made between them. On December 23d, there then being nearly $1,000 due on the building contract, Lettieri duly filed a certificate of lien. Said amount is still due and payable. A month later Aspromonte, without authority from Lettieri, signed and filed another certificate of lien in the name of both of them as partners. Aspromonte had never notified the plaintiff that he Intended to claim a lien. There remains due and unpaid to Aspromonte a considerable sum for labor performed on said buildings between the dates already named, and for the expenses incurred by him as already stated. After, and largely because of, Aspromonte's refusal to perform the terms of his agreement with Lettieri, it became necessary for Lettieri to meet his obligations arising from said work, and he secured and used for that purpose the sum of $600 from the defendant Angelo Conti. In consideration therefor, Lettieri in March, 1898, assigned to said Conti all his rights under the contract with the plaintiff, to the amount of $600; and in May, in consideration of the assumption by said Conti of the payment of an outstanding bill against Lettieri for materials used in the construction of said buildings, amounting to about $150, and in further consideration of certain groceries furnished to Lettieri from the store of said Conti, of small amount and value, not precisely determinable from the evidence, Lettieri made a further assignment to Conti of all his remaining rights under said contract. All these transactions between Lettieri and Conti were in good faith and without fraud. The assignments were made for a good and valuable consideration, and the plaintiff was duly and promptly notified of said assignments by Conti. As a part of these transactions between Lettieri and Conti, the former duly assigned to the latter, by an instrument in writing, his lien on said property, and all his rights thereunder, which paper was duly recorded in the Hartford land records in March, 1898. Subsequently Conti brought an action in the city court of Hartford against the...