Lighthall v. Colwell
| Citation | 1870 WL 6484,56 Ill. 108 |
| Parties | JOSEPH LIGHTHALLv.JOHN COLWELL et al. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the County Court of La Salle county; the Hon. CHARLES H. GILMAN, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. H. K. BOYLE, for the appellant.
Messrs. BUSHNELL & AVERY and Mr. E. F. BULL, for the appellees.
This was an action of debt, brought by appellees in the county court of La Salle county against appellant, on a contract to build a house by the former for the latter. The agreement specifies the sum to be paid by appellant and the character of the building to be erected by appellees. It is averred that appellees did furnish the materials and finish the house according to the terms of the agreement. Appellant filed pleas of nil debit, non est factum, set-off, that plaintiffs did not build the house according to the terms of the agreement; that plaintiffs did not keep their covenants in the agreement; that plaintiffs did not use clear siding on the building, and that the work was not done according to the agreement, whereby appellant sustained damage. Replications were filed and issue joined on each of the pleas. It will be observed that a number of these pleas are not appropriate to this form of action, but no exceptions were taken to them on the trial below, and a trial was had by a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant has appealed to this court.
The first error assigned questions the correctness of the decision of the court below in admitting evidence of the custom in that neighborhood as to boarding carpenters while building a house for the owner of the land. As drawn and signed by appellees, the agreement required appellant to board the hands without charge while engaged in building the house, but he struck that clause out before he signed it, and appellees' attention was called to the erasure when the agreement was returned to them executed by the appellant. They received it and went on and completed the building without any thing further being said in reference to board. From this evidence, and the agreement as it reads, there can be no question that both parties understood that appellant was not to board the hands free of cost to appellees. As executed, appellant was not bound to board the hands, under the terms of the agreement, and if he did board them he had the same right to have compensation as would any other person. And it was clearly erroneous to permit appellees to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. Emerson
... ... In other ... words, a recovery may be had for the amount of added value to ... the owner's property. Lighthall v. Colwell, 56 ... Ill. 108; Fuller v. Rice, 52 Mich. 435, 18 N.W. 204; ... Mosaic Tile Co. v. Chiera, 133 Mich. 497, 95 N.W ... 537; ... ...
-
Harms v. Harms
... ... Co. v. Webster, 69 Ill. 392; Mager v. Hutchinson, 2 Gilm. 266; Snyder v. Griswold, 37 Ill. 216; Wood v. Price, 46 Ill. 439; Lighthall v. Colwell, 56 Ill. 108; Lane v. Sharpe, 3 Scam. 566; Scott v. Bennett, 3 Gilm. 243; Winnesheik Ins. Co. v. Holzgrafe, 53 Ill. 516; Marshall v ... ...
-
Kupfer v. McConville
...124 N.W. 1114. The measure of such recovery is the contract price less compensation for imperfections of work or materials. Lighthall v. Colwell, 56 Ill. 108; Fuller Rice, 52 Mich. 436, 18 N.W. 204; Mosaic Tile Co. v. Chiera, 133 Mich. 498, 95 N.W. 537; Sheldon v. Lealy, 111, Mich. 39, 69 N......
-
Martus v. Houck
...from the contract, Sinclair v. Tallmadge, 35 Barb. 602; Smith v. McCluskey, 45 Barb. 615; Johnson v. DePeyster, 50 N. Y., 666; Lighthall v. Colwell, 56 Ill. 108; Norris v. Sch. Dist., 12 Me. 293; Glacius v. 67 N. Y., 563, and the question whether it has been substantially complied with is f......