Lee v. Harris

• Decision Date: 09 February 1912
• Citation: 82 A. 186,85 Conn. 212
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LEE et al. v. HARRIS et ux.

82 A. 186

85 Conn. 212

LEE et al. v. HARRIS et ux.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 9, 1912

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; John Coats Judge.

Action by Mary Jane Lee and others against Charles H. Harris and wife. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Error, and new trial ordered.

Joseph P. Tuttle, for appellants.

George O. Brott and George J. Stoner, for appellees.

HALL C.J.

The defendants, in consideration of the sum of $1,300, agreed to convey to the plaintiffs' assignors a certain tract of land in Rocky Hill, and also agreed " to provide a well giving water upon said premises, repair barn by making it wind and water tight, and remove a small partition in the dwelling house, build a water-closet, and repair the foundation of the house." This contract was assigned to the plaintiffs who are the bona fide owners thereof. The plaintiffs have received a deed of the premises, and have entered into possession thereof, and have on their part performed all the requirements of the agreement. The defendants have repaired the foundations of the house, but have failed to provide a well on said land, or to remove the partition, or to make the barn wind and water tight, or to build a water-closet, as specified in the agreement. The plaintiffs offered evidence of the cost of the digging of the well which was received by the trial court; but the court rejected all the evidence offered regarding the cost of making the other repairs and alterations named in the contract, upon the ground that the witnesses offered were not shown to be qualified to give an opinion as to the cost of such work. The defendants offered no evidence. [85 Conn. 214] Paragraph 22 of the finding is as follows: " The court from the evidence, estimated the cost of finishing the repairs and alterations agreed upon, and digging or otherwise providing a well giving water on the premises, at $350 assessed plaintiffs' damages at that sum, and rendered judgment as on file." The judgment rendered was for $350.

The defendants complain that the court erred: First, in not holding that the measure of damages was the difference in value between the property with the well, and without the well, concerning which difference no evidence was offered and, second, in including in the judgment the cost of the repairs and alterations, concerning the cost of which no evidence was received by the court.

The...