Lew Bonn Co. v. Herman
| Decision Date | 30 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39457,39457 |
| Citation | 135 N.W.2d 222,271 Minn. 105 |
| Parties | LEW BONN COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Alen HERMAN and Tony L. Ferrara, individually, and dba Calhoun Terrace Company, Appellant, Virgil L. Hillstrom, dba F. N. Hurd Company, Hurd Electric Co., and F. N. Hurd, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The failure of an electrical contractor to file with the city building inspector a copy of plans and specifications as required by ordinance did not render the contract illegal where such failure was no more than a slight breach relating to a collateral duty and did not involve bad motives or a design to deny the protection of law to one of a class for whose benefit the ordinance was enacted.
Leonard Street & Deinard and Jeremy C. Shea, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Louis J. Moriarty and Irving Frisch, Minneapolis, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of Virgil L. Hillstrom, doing business as F. N. Hurd Company, F. N. Hurd, and Hurd Electric Company, Inc., against Alen Herman and Tony L. Ferrara, individually and as partners under the trade name of Calhoun Terrace Company, hereinafter referred to as the Calhoun Company. The action grows out of extended lien claim litigation following the construction of an apartment building in Minneapolis. On appeal here the issue is reduced to the question of whether the failure of Hillstrom to file plans and specifications with the city building inspector as required by ordinance is sufficient ground to deny to him recovery for work performed as an electrical contractor.
From the record it appears that the Calhoun Company entered into an agreement with Hillstrom to perform the electrical work in the construction of the building. The basic plans for the building drawn by architects for the owners did not contain plans and specifications for electrical installations. The Calhoun Company did not employ an electrical engineer. Hillstrom performed this function as best he could. He secured a copy of the architect's plans superimposed his proposed electrical layout on them, and had sepia copies made of the sheet as the electrical plans and specifications. The contract was entered into on the basis of a condensed bill of materials. It was agreed that the work was to be installed in accordance with the city and state building codes. Section 4 1/2(a) and (c) of the Electrical Ordinance of the city of Minneapolis, in effect when the contract was made, required that plans and specifications for new electrical installations in new buildings 'for which plans and specifications are required for obtaining a building permit shall be submitted to the Department of Buildings for checking in every case where there is a combined electrical load of 30 KVA or over, or when requested by the Department of Buildings' so as to enable the Department of Buildings to check them for 'safety, adequacy, and code compliance.' 1
After Hillstrom began work on April 14, 1959, he applied for and was issued a building permit. It does not appear, however, that he filed the plans and specifications of the electrical installations as required by the ordinance. It is contended that this failure renders the contract illegal so as to deny Hillstrom and his associates recovery of the sum of $10,435.18, the amount awarded by the trial court.
We discussed at considerable length the general subject relating to the validity of agreements which involve failure to comply with provisions of law in In re Estate of Peterson, 230 Minn. 478, 42 N.W.2d 59, 18 A.L.R.2d 910. It is unnecessary to again review that general subject since we conclude that the asserted breach relates entirely to a matter collateral to the agreement and that noncompliance under the circumstances of this case does not require that recovery be denied.
The trial court found that although the electrical plans and specifications were not filed, they were nevertheless available to the city electrical inspector and that the work was performed in full compliance with the electrical code and that the contract 'was not an illegal contract.' The record established that one of the city electrical inspectors was on the premises from time to time while the job was in progress for the purpose of inspecting the installations and that he had an opportunity to examine the plans and specifications. On examination, the inspector gave the following testimony;
'Q. Did Mr. Hillstrom invite you to inspect the prints of this building prior to his commencing work on it? SU 'A. Yes.
'Q. He did. And what did you tell him, Mr. Anderson?
'A. I told him that the Code would require a receptacle for every 12 feet of the perimeter of the room, and if that is what it had, it was all right.
'Q. And then you just refused to look at them?
A. Well, I didn't take the time to look at them.'
The trial court was of the view that Hill-strom's failure to file plans a specifications did not under the circumstances deny to the other party benefits or protection which the ordinance was intended to give him and did not conflict with a public policy which would justify denial of recovery.
Although the general rule is that a contract entered into in violation of a statute which imposes a prohibition and a penalty for the doing of an act, such as the pursuit of a business, profession, or occupation without procuring a license or permit required by law for the protection of the public, is void, such rule is not to be applied without first examining the nature and circumstances of the contract in light of the applicable statute or ordinance. In construing such a statute or ordinance, courts will infer that the legislature did not intend that an instrument executed in violation of its terms should be void unless that be necessary to accomplish its purpose. 4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCabe/Marra Co. v. Dover
...avoid payment for system because plaintiff in performing its part of contract violated ordinance); see, also, Lew Bonn Co. v. Herman (1965), 271 Minn. 105, 135 N.W.2d 222 ("The failure of an electrical contractor to file with the city building inspector a copy of plans and specifications as......
-
North Central Co. v. Phelps Aero, Inc.
...on a contract where a party to it has failed to obtain a license or certificate as required by law appears in Lew Bonn Co. v. Herman, 271 Minn. 105, 108, 135 N.W.2d 222, 225, in this 'Although the general rule is that a contract entered into in violation of a statute which imposes a prohibi......
-
Woischke v. Stursberg & Fine, Inc.
...that the same body of caselaw applies to any case involving an illegal contract. See id. at 93-95 (citing Lew Bonn Co. v. Herman , 271 Minn. 105, 135 N.W.2d 222 (1965) ; Dick Weatherston's Assoc. Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. , 257 Minn. 184, 100 N.W.2d 819 (1960) ; In ......
-
Measday v. Sweazea
...in allowing recovery for plumbing work done without a permit in Ogilvy v. Peck, 200 Wash. 122, 93 P.2d 289 (1939). See Lew Bonn Co. v. Herman, 271 Minn. 105, 135 N.E.2d 222 Plaintiff's statutory violation does not prevent enforcement of the contract. See 6 Williston on Contracts § 1767 (rev......